Pharmacology

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients discharged to facilities rather than to home after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may need more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin to prevent blood clots, new data suggest.

Researchers led by Stefano Muscatelli, MD, an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, first aimed to determine whether there was an increase in risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who were discharged to facilities such as a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility, compared with those discharged to home after THA or TKA.

The second aim was to determine whether VTE risk differed between home- and non–home-discharge patients when stratified by the chemoprophylaxis prescribed to prevent VTE.

Findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons by coauthor Michael McHugh, MD, also an orthopedist at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor.

The agents were categorized in three groups: aspirin only; more aggressive anticoagulants, including warfarin, factor Xa inhibitor, direct thrombin inhibitor, low-molecular-weight heparin, pentasaccharide, or antiplatelet agents, with or without concurrent aspirin; and other regimens.

The researchers found that rates of VTE were higher among patients discharged to facilities.

Of 6,411 patients included in the study, the overall rate of VTE was 1.05%. Among home-discharge patients (n = 5445), rates of VTE were significantly lower than among patients discharged to facilities (n = 966) (0.83% vs. 2.26%; P < .001).

However, the researchers found there was no difference in VTE rates between non-home and home discharge in patients who received more aggressive chemoprophylaxis.

Among discharged patients who received only aspirin, rates of VTE among those discharged to home were significantly lower compared to those discharged to facilities (0.76% vs. 3.83%; P < .001).

“Smoking, BMI [body mass index], procedure type, and preoperative anticoagulation were not associated with the outcome of VTE,” Dr. McHugh said.

“Although we found VTE to continue to be an uncommon complication, non-home discharge is independently associated with higher rates of VTE. Patients should be encouraged to discharge home, but those discharged to non-home facilities after total joint arthroplasty should be considered for more potent chemoprophylaxis than aspirin,” he concluded.

Stuart J. Fischer, MD, with Summit (N.J.) Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he found the results inconclusive.

He said there is the potential for confounding because “the people who are sent to a facility after total hip or total knee are inherently less mobile and less able to take care of themselves, so they are at a higher risk for VTE. They are going to be more static.”

Dr. Fischer noted that over the past few years, there has been a movement away from anticoagulation with more aggressive agents toward aspirin, for several reasons. Providers don’t have to monitor aspirin use and can instruct patients to take it once or twice a day. Initial data seem to show that it protects well against VTE.

“The question is, in certain population of patients, is it enough? And that’s where the data are unclear,” Dr. Fischer said.

“It’s certainly a useful study, and we need to find out which methods of anticoagulation are most effective in each setting,” he said.

Limitations include that it was a retrospective review and that adverse events from more aggressive chemoprophylaxis agents were not assessed. Prophylactic regimens were chosen at the discretion of the treating surgeon.

The researchers excluded bilateral cases, conversion arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and deaths.

Dr. Muscatelli and Dr. McHugh reported no relevant financial relationships. A coauthor reported being a paid consultant for DePuy and Zimmer. Dr. Fischer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

CHICAGO – Access to medical cannabis (MC) cut opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic noncancer back pain and patients with osteoarthritis, according to preliminary data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

For those with chronic back pain, the average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day dropped from 15.1 to 11.0 (n = 186; P < .01). More than one-third of the patients (38.7%) stopped taking morphine after they filled prescriptions for medical cannabis.

LPETTET/Getty Images

Opioid prescriptions were filled 6 months before access to MC and then were compared with 6 months after access to MC.

In analyzing subgroups, the researchers found that patients who started at less than 15 MME/day and more than 15 MME/day showed significant decreases after filling the MC prescription.

Almost half (48.5%) of the patients in the group that started at less than 15 MME daily dropped to 0 MME/day, and 13.5% of patients who were getting more than 15 MME/day stopped using opioids.

Data on filled opioid prescriptions were gathered from a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) system for patients diagnosed with chronic musculoskeletal noncancer back pain who were eligible for MC access between February 2018 and July 2019.

Medical cannabis has shown benefit in treating chronic pain, but evidence has been limited on whether it can reduce opioid use, which can lead to substance abuse, addiction, overdose, and death, the researchers noted.

Researchers found that using MC via multiple routes of administration seemed to be important.

Patients who used only a single administration route showed a statistically insignificant decrease in MME/day from 20.0 to 15.1 (n = 68; P = .054), whereas patients who used two or more routes showed a significant decrease from 13.2 to 9.5 (n = 76; P < .01).

“We have many patients who are benefiting from a single route of delivery for chronic orthopedic pain,” Ari Greis, DO, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and a coauthor of the MC studies for both back pain and OA, said in an interview. “However, our data shows a greater reduction in opioid consumption in patients using more than one route of delivery.”

He said delivery modes in the studies included vaporized cannabis oil or flower; sublingual tinctures; capsules or tablets; and topical lotions, creams, and salves.

Dr. Greis is the director of the medical cannabis department at Rothman Orthopaedic Institute in Bryn Mawr, and is a senior fellow in the Institute of Emerging Health Professions and the Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, both in Philadelphia.
 

Medical cannabis also reduces opioids for OA

The same team of researchers, using the data from the PDMP system, showed that medical cannabis also helped reduce opioid use for osteoarthritis.

For patients using opioids for OA, there was a significant decrease in average MME/day of prescriptions filled by patients following MC access – from 18.2 to 9.8 (n = 40; P < .05). The average drop in MME/day was 46.3%. The percentage of patients who stopped using opioids was 37.5%. Pain score on a 0-10 visual analog scale decreased significantly from 6.6 (n = 36) to 5.0 (n = 26; P < .01) at 3 months and 5.4 (n = 16; P < .05) at 6 months.

Gary Stewart, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Morrow, Ga., who was not part of the studies, told this news organization that the studies offer good preliminary data to offer help with the opioid issue.

“I sometimes feel that we, as orthopedic surgeons and physicians in general, are working with one hand behind our back. We’re taking something that is a heroin or morphine derivative and giving it to our patients when we know it has a high risk of building tolerance and addiction. But at the same time, we have no alternative,” he said.

He said it’s important to remember the results from the relatively small study are preliminary and observational. People used different forms and amounts of MC and the data show only that prescriptions were filled, but not whether the cannabis was used. Prospective, controlled studies where opioids go head-to-head with MC are needed, he said.

“Still, this can lead us to more studies to give us an option [apart from] an opioid that we know is highly addictive,” he said.

Dr. Stewart is a member of the AAOS Opioid Task Force. Dr. Greis and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and other coauthors report financial ties to companies unrelated to the research presented.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

The widely used antidiabetic drug metformin may cause genital birth defects such as undescended testicles and urethral problems in the male offspring of men who take the medication, researchers have found.

The association appears to involve the effects of metformin on the development of sperm during a critical window prior to conception. Female offspring were not affected. Although previous studies have linked diabetes with fertility problems in men, the latest study is the first to show that these problems can result from treatment rather than the disease itself, according to the researchers, whose findings appear in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“This is the first data to suggest that paternal metformin [use] may be associated with birth defects in children. As such, it would be early to begin to alter clinical practice,” Michael Eisenberg, MD, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery, department of urology, Stanford (Calif.) University, who is a coauthor of the study, said in an interview. “However, if it is confirmed in other populations, then it may begin to enter counseling discussions.”

Dr. Eisenberg added that eating a nutritious diet, exercising, and maintaining a healthy body weight “can improve a man’s health and likely his fertility as well.”

For the new study, Dr. Eisenberg and colleagues analyzed records in a registry of all 1.25 million births that occurred in Denmark between 1997 and 2016. The registry included information on birth defects and parental drug prescriptions.

Offspring were considered exposed to a diabetes drug if a father had filled one or more prescriptions for the medications during the 3 months prior to conception, when the fertilizing sperm would have been produced.

The final analysis included 1,116,779 offspring – all singleton births to women without a history of diabetes or essential hypertension – of whom 7,029 were exposed to diabetes drugs via the father, and 3.3% (n = 36,585) had one or more major birth defects.

Among male offspring whose fathers had taken metformin (n = 1,451), there was a 3.4-fold greater incidence of major genitourinary birth defects, according to the researchers. The study failed to find associations between birth defects and the use of insulin. Although a signal did emerge for sulfonylurea-based drugs, it did not reach statistical significance.

The risk associated with metformin did not appear for men who were prescribed the drug in the year before or after sperm development. Nor was it evident in siblings of the boys with birth defects who were not considered to have been exposed to the medication, the researchers reported.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article, Germaine Buck Louis, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, wrote: “Given the prevalence of metformin use as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, corroboration of these findings is urgently needed.”

Dr. Louis, dean of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University, Washington, said a key limitation of the research is the lack of data on how well men in the study adhered to their diabetes treatment. Nevertheless, “clinical guidance is needed to help couples planning pregnancy weigh the risks and benefits of paternal metformin use relative to other medications.”

The researchers received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

Is this the most controversial topic in breast oncology? Quite likely: the results of a recent online poll show split votes and no consensus.

The topic is the use of chemotherapy for premenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

Is the use of chemo in this patient population merely a “graceless” means of achieving ovarian function suppression, as one expert argued in a recent debate?

Or does it offer a distinct cytotoxic benefit, as the other expert countered?

The debate was held during the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), at which new results were presented that increased the controversy.

The controversy had arisen the previous year over results from the RxPONDER trial.

Five-year follow-up data from RxPONDER showed that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive HR+, HER2- breast cancer. This suggests that older women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy.

However, the same trial included premenopausal women with the same disease profile, and the results in this subgroup showed that there was benefit from chemotherapy, with a 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate of 94.2%, versus 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

The results were immediately controversial.

Some experts suggested the effect was due to the chemotherapy incidentally causing ovarian suppression, not the cytotoxic effect of the drugs on cancer cells. These experts were skeptical about the suggestion that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women than it does in postmenopausal women.

Some clinicians feel the lack of clarity creates an opportunity for greater discussion with women when making the treatment decision.

“When I have this conversation with patients, it’s really nuanced,” Stephanie L. Graff, MD, director of breast oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“I would choose chemotherapy for myself, but I’m a chemotherapy doctor, so I’m very comfortable with these medications and their side effects, and I am also very familiar with the slow burn of the side effects of endocrine therapy,” she said.

But for patients who are hearing their options for the first time, the idea of chemotherapy “feels scary,” and there is “a lot of stigma” associated with it, she commented.

Ultimately, she believes in offering patients as much information as possible, inasmuch as “knowledge is power.”

For Dr. Graff, the message from RxPONDER was that, in premenopausal patients with lymph node positive, HR+ breast cancer, “all comers benefited from chemotherapy.”

“And so if the goal is to be maximally aggressive and optimally lower your risk of distant recurrence, which is a life-threatening event, chemotherapy should offered.”

But chemotherapy comes with side effects, so it’s an important conversation to have with patients; RxPONDER showed that the absolute difference in the rate of distant recurrence with chemotherapy was relatively minor, she added.
 

Debate rages on

The debate at SABCS was moderated by Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who commented that if this was “a compelling question last week in clinic, it has now become red hot.”

At the meeting, held in December 2021, new longer-term data from the SOFT and TEXT clinical trials were presented, showing that ovarian suppression with tamoxifen plus an aromatase inhibitor provides a greater reduction in long-term risk of recurrence than tamoxifen alone.

Moreover, updated results from RxPONDER presented at the same session revealed that chemoendocrine therapy was associated with longer IDFS and distant relapse-free survival than endocrine therapy alone for women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower on the Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) 21-gene breast cancer assay.

Dr. Burstein said the debate over the use of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “is the most interesting question right now in early-stage breast cancer.”

The debate focused on the effect of chemotherapy in these patients – was it all down to ovarian function suppression?

Yes, argued Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.

Data from “modern adjuvant chemotherapy trials” suggest that chemo offers a 2%-3% benefit in distant disease-free survival at 5 years for premenopausal women, he noted. But the effect is much larger with ovarian function suppression via endocrine therapy, which provides 5-year disease-free and overall survival benefits of 9%-13%.

Older studies have shown that the benefit with chemotherapy is seen only in women who experience amenorrhea with the cytotoxic drugs, Dr. Gnant noted.

“In short, if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and you induce amenorrhea, then there is going to be a survival difference,” he said. “But if you give adjuvant chemotherapy and there is no amenorrhea, there won’t be an outcome difference.”

The ABSCG-05 trial, which compared endocrine therapy with chemotherapy, showed that “in the presence of optimal endocrine adjuvant treatment, adjuvant chemotherapy doesn’t add anything, because you have already achieved the effect of treatment-induced amenorrhea.”

So Dr. Gnant argued that the effect of chemotherapy in RxPONDER was due to ovarian function suppression.

But the real question is: “What does it mean for clinical practice?”

Dr. Gnant asserted that for the “large group of lower-risk premenopausal patients, tamoxifen will be good enough,” while those at moderate or intermediate risk should receive ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with the choice dictated by their adverse effects.

Chemotherapy “is just a graceless method of ovarian function suppression and should only be given to high-risk patients and to patients with endocrine nonresponsive disease,” he argued.

On the other side of the debate, Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, from the Centre of Hematology and Oncology, Bethanien, Frankfurt, argued that the effect is not all due to ovarian function suppression and that chemotherapy also has a cytotoxic effect in these patients.

“We need chemotherapy” because “cancer in young women is biologically different,” she asserted.

Dr. Loibl pointed to data currently awaiting publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that suggest that younger women have “higher immune gene expression” that may make them more chemotherapy sensitive, and lower expression of hormone receptor genes, which “could make them less endocrine sensitive.”

She also cited data from a study from her own group that showed that pathologic complete response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in younger women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer, indicating a direct effect of chemotherapy on the disease and that age was an important prognostic factor.

The data on the induction of amenorrhea by chemotherapy is also not as clearcut as it seems, she commented. Chemotherapy does not achieve 100% amenorrhea, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are unable to suppress ovarian function in 20% of women.

Dr. Loibl concluded that the “chemotherapy effect is there, it is higher in young women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer,” and that the effect has two components.

“There is a direct cytotoxic effect which cannot be neglected, and there is an endocrine effect on the ovarian function suppression,” she argued.

“I think both are needed in young premenopausal patients,” she added.
 

Audience responses

After the debate, the audience was polled on what effect they thought chemotherapy was having in lower-risk HR+, HER2- breast cancer patients. About two-thirds responded that it was all or mostly due to ovarian function suppression.

However, the next question split the audience. They were presented with a clinical scenario: a 43-year-old woman with a mammographically detected 1.4-cm, intermediate grade, HR+, HER2- breast cancer who also had metastatic disease in one of three sentinel lymph nodes and whose recurrence score was 13.

When asked about the treatment plan they would choose for this patient, the audience was split over whether to opt for chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

A similar clinical question was posited recently on Twitter, when Angela Toss, MD, PhD, from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, asked respondents which they would chose from among three options.

From the 815 votes that were cast, 46% chose Oncotype DX testing to determine the likely benefit of chemotherapy, 48% chose chemotherapy, and 6% picked ovarian function suppression and an aromatase inhibitor.

In response, Paolo Tarantino, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, commented: “If you had any doubt of which is the most controversial topic in breast oncology, doubt no more. 815 votes, no consensus.”

Approached for comment, Eric Winer, MD, director of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that the data from RxPONDER “in many ways was helpful, but ... it created about as many questions as it answered, if not more.”

Because the results showed a benefit from chemotherapy for premenopausal women but not for postmenopausal women with breast cancer, Dr. Winer told this news organization that one of the outstanding questions is “whether premenopausal women are fundamentally different from postmenopausal women ... and my answer to that is that is very unlikely.”

Dr. Winer added that the “real tragedy” of this trial was that it did not include women with more than three positive nodes, particularly those who have a low recurrence score, he said.

Clinicians are therefore left either “extrapolating” data from those with fewer nodes or “marching down a path that we’ve taken for years of just giving those people chemotherapy routinely,” even though there may be no benefit, Dr. Winer commented.

Another expert who was approached for comment had a different take on the data. Matteo Lambertini, MD, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy, agreed with Loibl’s argument that chemotherapy has a cytotoxic effect in premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- breast cancer in addition to its effect on ovarian function suppression.

He did not agree, however, that there is a question mark over what to do for patients with more than three positive lymph nodes.

Dr. Lambertini said in an interview that he thinks “too much” trust is placed in genomic testing and that there is a “risk of forgetting about all the other factors that we normally use to make our treatment choices.”

A patient with five positive nodes will benefit from chemotherapy, “even if she had a very low recurrence score,” he said, “because there is a very high clinical risk of disease recurrence,” and chemotherapy “is of benefit” in these situations, he asserted.

Dr. Lambertini said that the RxPONDER results – and also studies such as TAILORx, which demonstrated the ability of Oncotype DX to identify which patients with early breast cancer could skip chemotherapy – show that “chemotherapy has a role to play” and that most patients should receive it.

He suggested, however, that “probably the benefit of chemotherapy is smaller” in real life than was seen in these trials, because in the trials, they did not use optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy.
 

Treating individual patients

When it comes to making treatment decisions for individual patients, Dr. Winer said he has a “conversation with people about what the results of the study showed and what [he believes] that they need.”

For patients whose Oncotype DX score is in the “very low range, I do not recommend chemotherapy,” he said, preferring instead to use endocrine therapy for ovarian function suppression.

For women with a more intermediate score, “I explain that I don’t think we have an answer and that, if they would want to take the most traditional and conservative path, it would be to get chemotherapy.

“But I’m certainly not rigid about my recommendations, and I’m particularly open” to ovarian function suppression for a premenopausal woman with an Onctyope DX score of 20 and two positive nodes who does not have “other adverse features.”

“Ultimately, what pushes me in one direction or another,” Dr. Winer said, aside from number of positive nodes or the size of the tumor, “is the patient’s preferences.”

This was a theme taken up by Kim Sabelko, PhD, vice-president of scientific strategy and programs at Susan G. Komen, Dallas.

The results from RxPONDER and similar studies are “really interesting,” as researchers are “working out how to individualize treatment,” and that it is not a matter of “one size fits all.”

“We need to understand when to use chemotherapy and other drugs, and more importantly, when not to, because we don’t want to overtreat people who don’t necessarily need these drugs,” she commented.

Dr. Sabelko emphasized that treatment decisions “should be shared” between the patient and their doctor, and she noted that there “will be some people who are going to refuse chemotherapy for different reasons.”

These clinical trial results help clinicians to explain the risks and benefits of treatment options, but the treatment decision should be taken “together” with the patient, she emphasized.

Dr. Gnant has relationships with Sandoz, Amge, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Nanostring, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TLC Pharmaceuticals, and Life Brain. Dr. Loibl has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen, VM Scope, and GBG Forschungs.

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

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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