Pharmacology

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.

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Researchers running the EMPA-KIDNEY trial that’s been testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in about 6,600 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) announced on March 16 that they had stopped the trial early because of positive efficacy that met the study’s prespecified threshold for early termination.

EMPA-KIDNEY is the third major trial of an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransport 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class tested in patients with CKD to be stopped early because of positive results that met a prespecified termination rule.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

EMPA-KIDNEY enrolled a wider range of patients

EMPA-KIDNEY expands the scope of types of patients with CKD now shown to benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. CREDENCE tested canagliflozin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, and in DAPA-CKD, two-thirds of enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes, and all had CKD. In EMPA-KIDNEY, 46% of the 6,609 enrolled patients had diabetes (including a very small number with type 1 diabetes).

Another departure from prior studies of an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients selected primarily for having CKD was that in EMPA-KIDNEY, 20% of patients did not have albuminuria, and for 34%, eGFR at entry was less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m², with all enrolled patients required to have an eGFR at entry of greater than or equal to 20 mL/min/1.73 m². Average eGFR in EMPA-KIDNEY was about 38 mL/min/1.73 m². To be included in the trial, patients were not required to have albuminuria, except those whose eGFR was greater than or equal to 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

In DAPA-CKD, the minimum eGFR at entry had to be greater than or equal to 25 mL/min/1.73 m², and roughly 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m². The average eGFR in DAPA-CKD was about 43 mL/min/1.73 m². In addition, all patients had at least microalbuminuria, with a minimum urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200. In CREDENCE, the minimum eGFR for enrollment was 30 mL/min/1.73 m², and the average eGFR was about 56 mL/min/1.73 m². All patients in CREDENCE had to have macroalbuminuria, with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 300.

According to the researchers who designed EMPA-KIDNEY, the trial enrollment criteria aimed to include adults with CKD “who are frequently seen in practice but were under-represented in previous SGLT2 inhibitor trials.”

Indications for empagliflozin are expanding

The success of empagliflozin in EMPA-KIDNEY follows its positive results in both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials, which collectively proved the efficacy of the agent for patients with heart failure regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction and regardless of whether they also had diabetes.

These results led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recently expand the labeled indication for empagliflozin to all patients with heart failure. Empagliflozin also has labeled indications for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

As of today, empagliflozin has no labeled indication for treating patients with CKD. Dapagliflozin received that indication in April 2021, and canagliflozin received an indication for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, and albuminuria in September 2019.

EMPA-KIDNEY is sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance).

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new contact lens that elutes the antihistamine ketotifen as a treatment for ocular allergy.

“This is the world’s first and only contact lens that’s able to prevent itching associated with allergies, while at the same time providing vision correction,” said Brian Pall, DO, director of clinical science at Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, which is making the lens. “It’s certainly exciting.”

The new lens, Acuvue Theravision With Ketotifenis, is already on the market in Canada and Japan.

The lenses are daily disposable contacts indicated for the prevention of ocular itch caused by allergic conjunctivitis in people who do not have red eyes, are suitable for wearing contact lenses, and do not have more than 1.00 D of astigmatism.

Antihistamine eyedrops are contraindicated for use with contact lenses because eyedrop preservatives could interact with the lenses, and clinical trials generally exclude contact lens wearers.

Johnson & Johnson worked for over a decade to find an antihistamine that paired well with a contact lens material, finally hitting on the combination of ketotifen and etafilcon A, said Pall. The drug is integrated into the polymer during manufacturing.

In contact with the eye, the drug diffuses from the lens into the tear film and is absorbed by the ocular tissues, much like a conventional eyedrop. “The key difference is that this is a slower release,” Dr. Pall said. “Instead of a bolus of this large drop hitting the eye and then being flushed out immediately, we get a much more sustained release.”

Because the lens is kept sterilized until use, no preservatives are added to the medication. This is an advantage because preservatives cause irritation in some patients.

Ketotifen, a well-established treatment for ocular allergies, not only blocks histamine receptors but also stabilizes mast cells so that they don’t release cytokines, and it prevents inflammatory cells from rushing to the site of irritation, Dr. Pall said.

For a pair of identical clinical trials, published in 2019 in Cornea, Dr. Pall and his colleagues recruited 244 people with ocular allergies. For each trial, they divided these subjects into three groups. One group wore the ketotifen lenses in one eye and lenses without the drug in the other eye. The second group wore the ketotifen lenses in both eyes. The third wore the control lenses in both eyes.

The researchers then exposed the subjects to allergens and asked them to rate the itchiness of their eyes on a scale of 0-4 after 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Over these periods, the patients rated itchiness of the eyes with the ketotifen contact lenses a mean from 0.42-0.59; they rated the eyes with the control contacts 1.60-1.94. The differences were statistically significant (P < .001).

While about 5% of patients experienced adverse events, most of the events were not judged to be related to the contact lenses. The most common adverse event, reported by about 1% of patients, was installation site irritation. “The good news, what we’re hearing from the field, is it’s very subtle, it’s pretty mild, and it quickly dissipates,” said Dr. Pall.

The new contact lens “is promising for those who have contact lenses and the 20%-40% of the American population who have allergies,” said Leonard Bielory, MD, a professor of medicine, allergy, immunology, and ophthalmology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine in Nutley, N.J., who was not involved in the trial or in developing the lens.

“I have patients who wear contacts and have allergies, and they have to work around it,” he said in an interview. “I expected this 15 years ago, because this is a good idea.”

Johnson & Johnson is researching other drugs that might be delivered through contact lenses, Dr. Pall said.

The study was funded by Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Pall is an employee of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Bielory reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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