Video

In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.

“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

She reported results in 80 patients­ – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
 

Treatment

Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.

Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.

Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.

In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.

The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
 

Lead-in phase

The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.

“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.

There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.

There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
 

Efficacy with romidepsin

Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).

Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.

CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.

The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.

Efficacy with bortezomib

Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).

Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
 

Safety

Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).

Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.

Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.

This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.

“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

She reported results in 80 patients­ – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
 

Treatment

Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.

Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.

Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.

In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.

The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
 

Lead-in phase

The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.

“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.

There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.

There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
 

Efficacy with romidepsin

Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).

Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.

CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.

The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.

Efficacy with bortezomib

Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).

Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
 

Safety

Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).

Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.

Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.

This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.

“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

She reported results in 80 patients­ – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
 

Treatment

Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.

Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.

Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.

In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.

The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
 

Lead-in phase

The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.

“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.

There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.

There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
 

Efficacy with romidepsin

Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).

Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.

CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.

The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.

Efficacy with bortezomib

Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).

Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.

Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
 

Safety

Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).

Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).

Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.

Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.

This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

Diagnosis of AP is derived from the revised Atlanta classification.⁴⁶ The recommended timing and indications for offering cross-sectional imaging are after 48-72 hours in patients with no improvement to initial care.¹ Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, compared with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for choledocholithiasis, and has comparable specificity.^47,48 Among noninvasive imaging modalities, MRCP is more sensitive than computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.⁴⁹ Despite guideline recommendations for more selective use of pancreatic imaging in the early assessment of AP, utilization of early CT or MRCP imaging (within the first 24 hours of care) remained high during 2014-2015, compared with 2006-2007.⁵⁰

Risk stratification

The goals of using risk stratification tools in AP are to identify patients at risk for developing major outcomes, including POF, infected pancreatic necrosis, and death, and to ensure timely triaging of patients to an appropriate level of care. Existing prediction models have only moderate predictive value.^53,54 Examples include simple risk stratification tools such as blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and hemoconcentration,^55,56 disease-modifying patient variables (age, obesity, etc.), biomarkers (i.e., angiopoietin 2),⁵⁷ and more complex clinical scoring systems such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), BISAP (BUN, impaired mental status, SIRS criteria, age, pleural effusion) score, early warning system (EWS), Glasgow-Imrie score, Japanese severity score, and recently the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS).⁵⁸ Two recent guidelines affirmed the importance of predicting the severity of AP, using one or more predictive tools.^1,2 The recent 2018 AGA technical review does not debate this commonsense approach, but does highlight that there is no published observational study or randomized, controlled trial (RCT) investigating whether prediction tools affect clinical outcomes.⁴

Recent advances in early treatment of AP

Literature review and definitions

The AP literature contains heterogeneous definitions of severe AP and of what constitutes a major outcome in AP. Based on definitions of the 2013 revised Atlanta Criteria, the 2018 AGA technical review and clinical guidelines emphasized precise definitions of primary outcomes of clinical importance in AP, including death, persistent single organ failure, or persistent multiple organ failure, each requiring a duration of more than 48 hours, and infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis or both (Table 2).^3,4

Pain management

Management of pain in AP is complex and requires a detailed discussion beyond the scope of this review, but recent clinical and translational studies raise questions about the current practice of using opioids for pain management in AP. A provocative, multicenter, retrospective cohort study reported lower 30-day mortality among critically ill patients who received epidural analgesia versus standard care without epidural analgesia.⁵⁹ The possible mechanism of protection and the drugs administered are unclear. An interesting hypothesis is that the epidural cohort may have received lower exposure to morphine, which may increase gut permeability, the risk of infectious complications, and severity of AP, based on a translational study in mice.⁶⁰

Intravenous fluid administration

Supportive care with the use of IV fluid hydration is a mainstay of treatment for AP in the first 12-24 hours. Table 3 summarizes the guidelines in regards to IV fluid administration as delineated by the ACG and AGA guidelines on the management of pancreatitis.^1,3 Guidelines advocate for early fluid resuscitation to correct intravascular depletion in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AP.^1,2,4 The 2018 AGA guidelines endorse a conditional recommendation for using goal-directed therapy for initial fluid management,³ do not recommend for or against normal saline versus lactated Ringer’s (LR), but do advise against the use of hydroxyethyl starch fluids.³ Consistent with these recommendations, two recent RCTs published subsequent to the prespecified time periods of the AGA technical review and guideline, observed no significant differences between LR and normal saline on clinically meaningful outcomes.^61,62 The AGA guidelines acknowledge that evidence was of very-low quality in support of goal-directed therapy,^3,4 which has not been shown to have a significant reduction in persistent multiple organ failure, mortality, or pancreatic necrosis, compared with usual care. As the authors noted, interpretation of the data was limited by the absence of other critical outcomes in these trials (infected pancreatic necrosis), lack of uniformity of specific outcomes and definitions of transient and POF, few trials, and risk of bias. There is a clear need for a large RCT to provide evidence to guide decision making with fluid resuscitation in AP, particularly in regard to fluid type, volume, rate, duration, endpoints, and clinical outcomes.

Feeding

More recently, the focus of nutrition in the management of AP has shifted away from patients remaining nil per os (NPO). Current guidelines advocate for early oral feeding (within 24 hours) in mild AP,^3,4 in order to protect the gut-mucosal barrier. Remaining NPO when compared with early oral feeding has a 2.5-fold higher risk for interventions for necrosis.⁴ The recently published AGA technical review identified no significant impact on outcomes of early versus delayed oral feeding, which is consistent with observations of a landmark Dutch PYTHON trial entitled “Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.”^4,63 There is no clear cutoff point for initiating feeding for those with severe AP. A suggested practical approach is to initiate feeding within 24-72 hours and offer enteral nutrition for those intolerant to oral feeds. In severe AP and moderately severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended over parenteral nutrition.^3,4 Enteral nutrition significantly reduces the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single organ failure, and multiorgan failure.⁴ Finally, the AGA guidelines provide a conditional recommendation for providing enteral nutrition support through either the nasogastric or nasoenteric route.³ Further studies are required to determine the optimal timing, rate, and formulation of enteral nutrition in severe AP.

Antibiotics and probiotics

Current guidelines do not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in necrotizing AP and severe AP.^1-3 The AGA technical review reported that prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, persistent single organ failure, or mortality.⁴ Guidelines advocate against the use of probiotics for severe AP, because of increased mortality risk.¹

Timing of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis

There is universal agreement for offering urgent ERCP (within 24 hours) in biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.^1-3,64 Figure 2 demonstrates an example of a cholangiogram completed within 24 hours of presentation of biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.

In the absence of cholangitis, the timing of ERCP for AP with persistent biliary obstruction is less clear.^1-3 In line with recent guidelines, the 2018 AGA guidelines advocate against routine use of urgent ERCP for biliary AP without cholangitis,³ a conditional recommendation with overall low quality of data.⁴ The AGA technical review found that urgent ERCP, compared with conservative management in acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis had no significant effect on mortality, organ failure, infected pancreatic necrosis, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, but did significantly shorten hospital length of stay.⁴ There are limited data to guide decision making of when nonurgent ERCP should be performed in hospitalized patients with biliary AP with persistent obstruction and no cholangitis.^3,64

Alcohol and smoking cessation

The AGA technical review advocates for brief alcohol intervention during hospitalization for alcohol-induced AP on the basis of one RCT that addresses the impact of alcohol counseling on recurrent bouts of AP⁴ plus evidence from a Cochrane review of alcohol-reduction strategies in primary care populations.⁶⁵ Cessation of smoking – an established independent risk factor of AP – recurrent AP and chronic pancreatitis, should also be recommended as part of the management of AP.

Cholecystectomy

Evidence supports same-admission cholecystectomy for mild gallstone AP, a strong recommendation of published AGA guidelines.³ When compared with delayed cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy significantly reduced gallstone-related complications, readmissions for recurrent pancreatitis, and pancreaticobiliary complications, without having a significant impact on mortality during a 6-month follow-up period.⁶⁶ Delaying cholecystectomy 6 weeks in patients with moderate-severe gallstone AP appears to reduce morbidity, including the development of infected collections, and mortality.⁴ An ongoing RCT, the APEC trial, aims to determine whether early ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy reduces major complications or death when compared with no intervention for biliary AP in patients at high risk of complications.⁶⁷

Chemoprevention and IV fluid management of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Accumulating data support the effectiveness of chemoprevention, pancreatic stent placement, and fluid administration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Multiple RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews indicate that rectal NSAIDs) reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis onset^68-71 and moderate-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis. Additionally, placement of a pancreatic duct stent may decrease the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.³ Guidelines do not comment on fluid administrations for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, but studies have shown that greater periprocedural IV fluid was an independent protective factor against moderate to severe PEP⁷² and was associated with shorter hospital length of stay.⁷³ Recent meta-analyses and RCTs support using LR prior to ERCP to prevent PEP.^74-77 Interestingly, a recent RCT shows that the combination of rectal indomethacin and LR, compared with combination placebo and normal saline reduced the risk of PEP in high-risk patients.⁷⁸

Two ongoing multicenter RCTs will clarify the role of combination therapy. The Dutch FLUYT RCT aims to determine the optimal combination of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural infusion of IV fluids to reduce the incidence of PEP and moderate-severe PEP⁷⁹ and the Stent vs. Indomethacin (SVI) trial aims to determine the whether combination pancreatic stent placement plus rectal indomethacin is superior to monotherapy indomethacin for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk cases.⁸⁰

Implications for clinical practice

The diagnosis and optimal management of AP require a systematic approach with multidisciplinary decision making. Morbidity and mortality in AP are driven by early or late POF, and the latter often is triggered by infected necrosis. Risk stratification of these patients at the point of contact is a commonsense approach to enable triaging of patients to the appropriate level of care. Regardless of pancreatitis severity, recommended treatment interventions include goal-directed IV fluid resuscitation, early feeding by mouth or enteral tube when necessary, avoidance of prophylactic antibiotics, avoidance of probiotics, and urgent ERCP for patients with acute biliary pancreatitis complicated by cholangitis. Key measures for preventing hospital readmission and pancreatitis include same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis and alcohol and smoking cessation. Preventive measures for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing ERCP include rectal indomethacin, prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement, and periprocedural fluid resuscitation.

Dr. Mandalia is a fellow, gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; Dr. DiMagno is associate professor of medicine, director, comprehensive pancreas program, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Mandalia reports no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tenner S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1400.

2. Besseline M et al. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4, Supplement 2):e1-15.

3. Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1096-101.

4. Vege SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1103-39.

5. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):254-72.e11.

6. Krishna SG et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(4):482-8.

7. Sellers ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(2):469-78.e1.

8. Brown A et al. JOP. 2008;9(4):408-14.

9. Fagenholz PJ et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(7):491.e1-.e8.

10. McNabb-Baltar J et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(5):687-91.

11. Johnson CD et al. Gut. 2004;53(9):1340-4.

12. Dellinger EP et al. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):875-80.

13. Petrov MS et al. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(3):813-20.

14. Sternby H et al. Ann Surg. Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002766.

15. Huh JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(2):178-83.

16. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(3):816-20.

17. Gardner TB et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(10):1070-6.

18. Krishna SG et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(11):1608-19.

19. Lee PJ et al. Pancreas. 2016;45(4):561-4.

20. Mandalia A et al. F1000Research. 2018 Jun 28;7.

21. Majumder S et al. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):540-6.

22. DiMagno MJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(11):920-2.

23. Yadav D, Whitcomb DC. Nature Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;7(3):131-45.

24. Samokhvalov AV et al. EBioMedicine. 2015;2(12):1996-2002.

25. Barkin JA et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(8):1035-8.

26. Chen Y-T et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(4):782-7.

27. Ramos LR et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(1):95-104.

28. Avram MM. Nephron. 1977;18(1):68-71.

29. Lankisch PG et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(4):1401-5.

30. Owyang C et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1979;54(12):769-73.

31. Owyang Cet al. Gut. 1982;23(5):357-61.

32. Quraishi ER et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:2288.

33. Vaziri ND et al. Nephron. 1987;46(4):347-9.

34. Chen HJ et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(10):1731-6.

35. Kirkegard J et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;May;154(6):1729-36.

36. Karlson BM, et al. Gastroenterology. 1997;113(2):587-92.

37. Munigala S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1143-50.e1.

38. Carr RA et al. Pancreatology. 2016;16(4):469-76.

39. Li X et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;18(1):89.

40. Ahmed AU et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(5):738-46.

41. Sankaran SJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1490-500.e1.

42. Berglund L et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(9):2969-89.

43. Catapano AL et al. Atherosclerosis. 2011;217(1):3-46.

44. Pedersen SB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1834-42.

45. Nawaz H et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(10):1497-503.

46. Banks PA et al. Gut. 2013;62(1):102-11.

47. Kondo S et al. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(2):271-5.

48. Meeralam Y et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(6):986-93.

49. Stimac D et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(5):997-1004.

50. Jin DX et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(10):2894-9.

51. Freeman ML. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012;22(3):567-86.

52. De Lisi S et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23(5):367-74.

53. Di MY et al. Ann Int Med. 2016;165(7):482-90.

54. Mounzer R et al. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(7):1476-82; quiz e15-6.

55. Koutroumpakis E et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(12):1707-16.

56. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(1):129-35.

57. Buddingh KT et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(1):26-32.

58. Buxbaum J et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(5):755-64.

59. Jabaudon M et al. Crit Car Med. 2018;46(3):e198-e205.

60. Barlass U et al. Gut. 2018;67(4):600-2.

61. Buxbaum JL et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(5):797-803.

62. de-Madaria E et al. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(1):63-72.

63. Bakker OJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1983-93.

64. Tse F et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(5):Cd009779.

65. Kaner EFS et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):Cd004148.

66. da Costa DW et al. Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1261-8.

67. Schepers NJ et al. Trials. 2016;17:5.

68. Vadala di Prampero SF et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28(12):1415-24.

69. Kubiliun NM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(7):1231-9; quiz e70-1.

70. Wan J et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017;17(1):43.

71. Yang C et al. Pancreatology. 2017;17(5):681-8.

72. DiMagno MJ et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(4):642-7.

73. Sagi SV et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(6):1316-20.

74. Choi JH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(1):86-92.e1.

75. Wu D et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(8):e68-e76.

76. Zhang ZF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(3):e17-e26.

77. Park CH et al. Endoscopy 2018 Apr;50(4):378-85.

78. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):1005-13.

79. Smeets XJN et al. Trials. 2018;19(1):207.

80. Elmunzer BJ et al. Trials. 2016;17(1):120.

Diagnosis of AP is derived from the revised Atlanta classification.⁴⁶ The recommended timing and indications for offering cross-sectional imaging are after 48-72 hours in patients with no improvement to initial care.¹ Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, compared with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for choledocholithiasis, and has comparable specificity.^47,48 Among noninvasive imaging modalities, MRCP is more sensitive than computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.⁴⁹ Despite guideline recommendations for more selective use of pancreatic imaging in the early assessment of AP, utilization of early CT or MRCP imaging (within the first 24 hours of care) remained high during 2014-2015, compared with 2006-2007.⁵⁰

Risk stratification

The goals of using risk stratification tools in AP are to identify patients at risk for developing major outcomes, including POF, infected pancreatic necrosis, and death, and to ensure timely triaging of patients to an appropriate level of care. Existing prediction models have only moderate predictive value.^53,54 Examples include simple risk stratification tools such as blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and hemoconcentration,^55,56 disease-modifying patient variables (age, obesity, etc.), biomarkers (i.e., angiopoietin 2),⁵⁷ and more complex clinical scoring systems such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), BISAP (BUN, impaired mental status, SIRS criteria, age, pleural effusion) score, early warning system (EWS), Glasgow-Imrie score, Japanese severity score, and recently the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS).⁵⁸ Two recent guidelines affirmed the importance of predicting the severity of AP, using one or more predictive tools.^1,2 The recent 2018 AGA technical review does not debate this commonsense approach, but does highlight that there is no published observational study or randomized, controlled trial (RCT) investigating whether prediction tools affect clinical outcomes.⁴

Recent advances in early treatment of AP

Literature review and definitions

The AP literature contains heterogeneous definitions of severe AP and of what constitutes a major outcome in AP. Based on definitions of the 2013 revised Atlanta Criteria, the 2018 AGA technical review and clinical guidelines emphasized precise definitions of primary outcomes of clinical importance in AP, including death, persistent single organ failure, or persistent multiple organ failure, each requiring a duration of more than 48 hours, and infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis or both (Table 2).^3,4

Pain management

Management of pain in AP is complex and requires a detailed discussion beyond the scope of this review, but recent clinical and translational studies raise questions about the current practice of using opioids for pain management in AP. A provocative, multicenter, retrospective cohort study reported lower 30-day mortality among critically ill patients who received epidural analgesia versus standard care without epidural analgesia.⁵⁹ The possible mechanism of protection and the drugs administered are unclear. An interesting hypothesis is that the epidural cohort may have received lower exposure to morphine, which may increase gut permeability, the risk of infectious complications, and severity of AP, based on a translational study in mice.⁶⁰

Intravenous fluid administration

Supportive care with the use of IV fluid hydration is a mainstay of treatment for AP in the first 12-24 hours. Table 3 summarizes the guidelines in regards to IV fluid administration as delineated by the ACG and AGA guidelines on the management of pancreatitis.^1,3 Guidelines advocate for early fluid resuscitation to correct intravascular depletion in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AP.^1,2,4 The 2018 AGA guidelines endorse a conditional recommendation for using goal-directed therapy for initial fluid management,³ do not recommend for or against normal saline versus lactated Ringer’s (LR), but do advise against the use of hydroxyethyl starch fluids.³ Consistent with these recommendations, two recent RCTs published subsequent to the prespecified time periods of the AGA technical review and guideline, observed no significant differences between LR and normal saline on clinically meaningful outcomes.^61,62 The AGA guidelines acknowledge that evidence was of very-low quality in support of goal-directed therapy,^3,4 which has not been shown to have a significant reduction in persistent multiple organ failure, mortality, or pancreatic necrosis, compared with usual care. As the authors noted, interpretation of the data was limited by the absence of other critical outcomes in these trials (infected pancreatic necrosis), lack of uniformity of specific outcomes and definitions of transient and POF, few trials, and risk of bias. There is a clear need for a large RCT to provide evidence to guide decision making with fluid resuscitation in AP, particularly in regard to fluid type, volume, rate, duration, endpoints, and clinical outcomes.

Feeding

More recently, the focus of nutrition in the management of AP has shifted away from patients remaining nil per os (NPO). Current guidelines advocate for early oral feeding (within 24 hours) in mild AP,^3,4 in order to protect the gut-mucosal barrier. Remaining NPO when compared with early oral feeding has a 2.5-fold higher risk for interventions for necrosis.⁴ The recently published AGA technical review identified no significant impact on outcomes of early versus delayed oral feeding, which is consistent with observations of a landmark Dutch PYTHON trial entitled “Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.”^4,63 There is no clear cutoff point for initiating feeding for those with severe AP. A suggested practical approach is to initiate feeding within 24-72 hours and offer enteral nutrition for those intolerant to oral feeds. In severe AP and moderately severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended over parenteral nutrition.^3,4 Enteral nutrition significantly reduces the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single organ failure, and multiorgan failure.⁴ Finally, the AGA guidelines provide a conditional recommendation for providing enteral nutrition support through either the nasogastric or nasoenteric route.³ Further studies are required to determine the optimal timing, rate, and formulation of enteral nutrition in severe AP.

Antibiotics and probiotics

Current guidelines do not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in necrotizing AP and severe AP.^1-3 The AGA technical review reported that prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, persistent single organ failure, or mortality.⁴ Guidelines advocate against the use of probiotics for severe AP, because of increased mortality risk.¹

Timing of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis

There is universal agreement for offering urgent ERCP (within 24 hours) in biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.^1-3,64 Figure 2 demonstrates an example of a cholangiogram completed within 24 hours of presentation of biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.

In the absence of cholangitis, the timing of ERCP for AP with persistent biliary obstruction is less clear.^1-3 In line with recent guidelines, the 2018 AGA guidelines advocate against routine use of urgent ERCP for biliary AP without cholangitis,³ a conditional recommendation with overall low quality of data.⁴ The AGA technical review found that urgent ERCP, compared with conservative management in acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis had no significant effect on mortality, organ failure, infected pancreatic necrosis, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, but did significantly shorten hospital length of stay.⁴ There are limited data to guide decision making of when nonurgent ERCP should be performed in hospitalized patients with biliary AP with persistent obstruction and no cholangitis.^3,64

Alcohol and smoking cessation

The AGA technical review advocates for brief alcohol intervention during hospitalization for alcohol-induced AP on the basis of one RCT that addresses the impact of alcohol counseling on recurrent bouts of AP⁴ plus evidence from a Cochrane review of alcohol-reduction strategies in primary care populations.⁶⁵ Cessation of smoking – an established independent risk factor of AP – recurrent AP and chronic pancreatitis, should also be recommended as part of the management of AP.

Cholecystectomy

Evidence supports same-admission cholecystectomy for mild gallstone AP, a strong recommendation of published AGA guidelines.³ When compared with delayed cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy significantly reduced gallstone-related complications, readmissions for recurrent pancreatitis, and pancreaticobiliary complications, without having a significant impact on mortality during a 6-month follow-up period.⁶⁶ Delaying cholecystectomy 6 weeks in patients with moderate-severe gallstone AP appears to reduce morbidity, including the development of infected collections, and mortality.⁴ An ongoing RCT, the APEC trial, aims to determine whether early ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy reduces major complications or death when compared with no intervention for biliary AP in patients at high risk of complications.⁶⁷

Chemoprevention and IV fluid management of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Accumulating data support the effectiveness of chemoprevention, pancreatic stent placement, and fluid administration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Multiple RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews indicate that rectal NSAIDs) reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis onset^68-71 and moderate-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis. Additionally, placement of a pancreatic duct stent may decrease the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.³ Guidelines do not comment on fluid administrations for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, but studies have shown that greater periprocedural IV fluid was an independent protective factor against moderate to severe PEP⁷² and was associated with shorter hospital length of stay.⁷³ Recent meta-analyses and RCTs support using LR prior to ERCP to prevent PEP.^74-77 Interestingly, a recent RCT shows that the combination of rectal indomethacin and LR, compared with combination placebo and normal saline reduced the risk of PEP in high-risk patients.⁷⁸

Two ongoing multicenter RCTs will clarify the role of combination therapy. The Dutch FLUYT RCT aims to determine the optimal combination of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural infusion of IV fluids to reduce the incidence of PEP and moderate-severe PEP⁷⁹ and the Stent vs. Indomethacin (SVI) trial aims to determine the whether combination pancreatic stent placement plus rectal indomethacin is superior to monotherapy indomethacin for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk cases.⁸⁰

Implications for clinical practice

The diagnosis and optimal management of AP require a systematic approach with multidisciplinary decision making. Morbidity and mortality in AP are driven by early or late POF, and the latter often is triggered by infected necrosis. Risk stratification of these patients at the point of contact is a commonsense approach to enable triaging of patients to the appropriate level of care. Regardless of pancreatitis severity, recommended treatment interventions include goal-directed IV fluid resuscitation, early feeding by mouth or enteral tube when necessary, avoidance of prophylactic antibiotics, avoidance of probiotics, and urgent ERCP for patients with acute biliary pancreatitis complicated by cholangitis. Key measures for preventing hospital readmission and pancreatitis include same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis and alcohol and smoking cessation. Preventive measures for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing ERCP include rectal indomethacin, prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement, and periprocedural fluid resuscitation.

Dr. Mandalia is a fellow, gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; Dr. DiMagno is associate professor of medicine, director, comprehensive pancreas program, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Mandalia reports no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tenner S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1400.

2. Besseline M et al. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4, Supplement 2):e1-15.

3. Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1096-101.

4. Vege SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1103-39.

5. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):254-72.e11.

6. Krishna SG et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(4):482-8.

7. Sellers ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(2):469-78.e1.

8. Brown A et al. JOP. 2008;9(4):408-14.

9. Fagenholz PJ et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(7):491.e1-.e8.

10. McNabb-Baltar J et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(5):687-91.

11. Johnson CD et al. Gut. 2004;53(9):1340-4.

12. Dellinger EP et al. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):875-80.

13. Petrov MS et al. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(3):813-20.

14. Sternby H et al. Ann Surg. Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002766.

15. Huh JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(2):178-83.

16. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(3):816-20.

17. Gardner TB et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(10):1070-6.

18. Krishna SG et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(11):1608-19.

19. Lee PJ et al. Pancreas. 2016;45(4):561-4.

20. Mandalia A et al. F1000Research. 2018 Jun 28;7.

21. Majumder S et al. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):540-6.

22. DiMagno MJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(11):920-2.

23. Yadav D, Whitcomb DC. Nature Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;7(3):131-45.

24. Samokhvalov AV et al. EBioMedicine. 2015;2(12):1996-2002.

25. Barkin JA et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(8):1035-8.

26. Chen Y-T et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(4):782-7.

27. Ramos LR et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(1):95-104.

28. Avram MM. Nephron. 1977;18(1):68-71.

29. Lankisch PG et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(4):1401-5.

30. Owyang C et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1979;54(12):769-73.

31. Owyang Cet al. Gut. 1982;23(5):357-61.

32. Quraishi ER et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:2288.

33. Vaziri ND et al. Nephron. 1987;46(4):347-9.

34. Chen HJ et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(10):1731-6.

35. Kirkegard J et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;May;154(6):1729-36.

36. Karlson BM, et al. Gastroenterology. 1997;113(2):587-92.

37. Munigala S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1143-50.e1.

38. Carr RA et al. Pancreatology. 2016;16(4):469-76.

39. Li X et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;18(1):89.

40. Ahmed AU et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(5):738-46.

41. Sankaran SJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1490-500.e1.

42. Berglund L et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(9):2969-89.

43. Catapano AL et al. Atherosclerosis. 2011;217(1):3-46.

44. Pedersen SB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1834-42.

45. Nawaz H et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(10):1497-503.

46. Banks PA et al. Gut. 2013;62(1):102-11.

47. Kondo S et al. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(2):271-5.

48. Meeralam Y et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(6):986-93.

49. Stimac D et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(5):997-1004.

50. Jin DX et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(10):2894-9.

51. Freeman ML. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012;22(3):567-86.

52. De Lisi S et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23(5):367-74.

53. Di MY et al. Ann Int Med. 2016;165(7):482-90.

54. Mounzer R et al. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(7):1476-82; quiz e15-6.

55. Koutroumpakis E et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(12):1707-16.

56. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(1):129-35.

57. Buddingh KT et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(1):26-32.

58. Buxbaum J et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(5):755-64.

59. Jabaudon M et al. Crit Car Med. 2018;46(3):e198-e205.

60. Barlass U et al. Gut. 2018;67(4):600-2.

61. Buxbaum JL et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(5):797-803.

62. de-Madaria E et al. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(1):63-72.

63. Bakker OJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1983-93.

64. Tse F et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(5):Cd009779.

65. Kaner EFS et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):Cd004148.

66. da Costa DW et al. Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1261-8.

67. Schepers NJ et al. Trials. 2016;17:5.

68. Vadala di Prampero SF et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28(12):1415-24.

69. Kubiliun NM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(7):1231-9; quiz e70-1.

70. Wan J et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017;17(1):43.

71. Yang C et al. Pancreatology. 2017;17(5):681-8.

72. DiMagno MJ et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(4):642-7.

73. Sagi SV et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(6):1316-20.

74. Choi JH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(1):86-92.e1.

75. Wu D et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(8):e68-e76.

76. Zhang ZF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(3):e17-e26.

77. Park CH et al. Endoscopy 2018 Apr;50(4):378-85.

78. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):1005-13.

79. Smeets XJN et al. Trials. 2018;19(1):207.

80. Elmunzer BJ et al. Trials. 2016;17(1):120.

Diagnosis of AP is derived from the revised Atlanta classification.⁴⁶ The recommended timing and indications for offering cross-sectional imaging are after 48-72 hours in patients with no improvement to initial care.¹ Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has better diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, compared with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for choledocholithiasis, and has comparable specificity.^47,48 Among noninvasive imaging modalities, MRCP is more sensitive than computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.⁴⁹ Despite guideline recommendations for more selective use of pancreatic imaging in the early assessment of AP, utilization of early CT or MRCP imaging (within the first 24 hours of care) remained high during 2014-2015, compared with 2006-2007.⁵⁰

Risk stratification

The goals of using risk stratification tools in AP are to identify patients at risk for developing major outcomes, including POF, infected pancreatic necrosis, and death, and to ensure timely triaging of patients to an appropriate level of care. Existing prediction models have only moderate predictive value.^53,54 Examples include simple risk stratification tools such as blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and hemoconcentration,^55,56 disease-modifying patient variables (age, obesity, etc.), biomarkers (i.e., angiopoietin 2),⁵⁷ and more complex clinical scoring systems such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), BISAP (BUN, impaired mental status, SIRS criteria, age, pleural effusion) score, early warning system (EWS), Glasgow-Imrie score, Japanese severity score, and recently the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS).⁵⁸ Two recent guidelines affirmed the importance of predicting the severity of AP, using one or more predictive tools.^1,2 The recent 2018 AGA technical review does not debate this commonsense approach, but does highlight that there is no published observational study or randomized, controlled trial (RCT) investigating whether prediction tools affect clinical outcomes.⁴

Recent advances in early treatment of AP

Literature review and definitions

The AP literature contains heterogeneous definitions of severe AP and of what constitutes a major outcome in AP. Based on definitions of the 2013 revised Atlanta Criteria, the 2018 AGA technical review and clinical guidelines emphasized precise definitions of primary outcomes of clinical importance in AP, including death, persistent single organ failure, or persistent multiple organ failure, each requiring a duration of more than 48 hours, and infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis or both (Table 2).^3,4

Pain management

Management of pain in AP is complex and requires a detailed discussion beyond the scope of this review, but recent clinical and translational studies raise questions about the current practice of using opioids for pain management in AP. A provocative, multicenter, retrospective cohort study reported lower 30-day mortality among critically ill patients who received epidural analgesia versus standard care without epidural analgesia.⁵⁹ The possible mechanism of protection and the drugs administered are unclear. An interesting hypothesis is that the epidural cohort may have received lower exposure to morphine, which may increase gut permeability, the risk of infectious complications, and severity of AP, based on a translational study in mice.⁶⁰

Intravenous fluid administration

Supportive care with the use of IV fluid hydration is a mainstay of treatment for AP in the first 12-24 hours. Table 3 summarizes the guidelines in regards to IV fluid administration as delineated by the ACG and AGA guidelines on the management of pancreatitis.^1,3 Guidelines advocate for early fluid resuscitation to correct intravascular depletion in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AP.^1,2,4 The 2018 AGA guidelines endorse a conditional recommendation for using goal-directed therapy for initial fluid management,³ do not recommend for or against normal saline versus lactated Ringer’s (LR), but do advise against the use of hydroxyethyl starch fluids.³ Consistent with these recommendations, two recent RCTs published subsequent to the prespecified time periods of the AGA technical review and guideline, observed no significant differences between LR and normal saline on clinically meaningful outcomes.^61,62 The AGA guidelines acknowledge that evidence was of very-low quality in support of goal-directed therapy,^3,4 which has not been shown to have a significant reduction in persistent multiple organ failure, mortality, or pancreatic necrosis, compared with usual care. As the authors noted, interpretation of the data was limited by the absence of other critical outcomes in these trials (infected pancreatic necrosis), lack of uniformity of specific outcomes and definitions of transient and POF, few trials, and risk of bias. There is a clear need for a large RCT to provide evidence to guide decision making with fluid resuscitation in AP, particularly in regard to fluid type, volume, rate, duration, endpoints, and clinical outcomes.

Feeding

More recently, the focus of nutrition in the management of AP has shifted away from patients remaining nil per os (NPO). Current guidelines advocate for early oral feeding (within 24 hours) in mild AP,^3,4 in order to protect the gut-mucosal barrier. Remaining NPO when compared with early oral feeding has a 2.5-fold higher risk for interventions for necrosis.⁴ The recently published AGA technical review identified no significant impact on outcomes of early versus delayed oral feeding, which is consistent with observations of a landmark Dutch PYTHON trial entitled “Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.”^4,63 There is no clear cutoff point for initiating feeding for those with severe AP. A suggested practical approach is to initiate feeding within 24-72 hours and offer enteral nutrition for those intolerant to oral feeds. In severe AP and moderately severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended over parenteral nutrition.^3,4 Enteral nutrition significantly reduces the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single organ failure, and multiorgan failure.⁴ Finally, the AGA guidelines provide a conditional recommendation for providing enteral nutrition support through either the nasogastric or nasoenteric route.³ Further studies are required to determine the optimal timing, rate, and formulation of enteral nutrition in severe AP.

Antibiotics and probiotics

Current guidelines do not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in necrotizing AP and severe AP.^1-3 The AGA technical review reported that prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, persistent single organ failure, or mortality.⁴ Guidelines advocate against the use of probiotics for severe AP, because of increased mortality risk.¹

Timing of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis

There is universal agreement for offering urgent ERCP (within 24 hours) in biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.^1-3,64 Figure 2 demonstrates an example of a cholangiogram completed within 24 hours of presentation of biliary AP complicated by cholangitis.

In the absence of cholangitis, the timing of ERCP for AP with persistent biliary obstruction is less clear.^1-3 In line with recent guidelines, the 2018 AGA guidelines advocate against routine use of urgent ERCP for biliary AP without cholangitis,³ a conditional recommendation with overall low quality of data.⁴ The AGA technical review found that urgent ERCP, compared with conservative management in acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis had no significant effect on mortality, organ failure, infected pancreatic necrosis, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, but did significantly shorten hospital length of stay.⁴ There are limited data to guide decision making of when nonurgent ERCP should be performed in hospitalized patients with biliary AP with persistent obstruction and no cholangitis.^3,64

Alcohol and smoking cessation

The AGA technical review advocates for brief alcohol intervention during hospitalization for alcohol-induced AP on the basis of one RCT that addresses the impact of alcohol counseling on recurrent bouts of AP⁴ plus evidence from a Cochrane review of alcohol-reduction strategies in primary care populations.⁶⁵ Cessation of smoking – an established independent risk factor of AP – recurrent AP and chronic pancreatitis, should also be recommended as part of the management of AP.

Cholecystectomy

Evidence supports same-admission cholecystectomy for mild gallstone AP, a strong recommendation of published AGA guidelines.³ When compared with delayed cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy significantly reduced gallstone-related complications, readmissions for recurrent pancreatitis, and pancreaticobiliary complications, without having a significant impact on mortality during a 6-month follow-up period.⁶⁶ Delaying cholecystectomy 6 weeks in patients with moderate-severe gallstone AP appears to reduce morbidity, including the development of infected collections, and mortality.⁴ An ongoing RCT, the APEC trial, aims to determine whether early ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy reduces major complications or death when compared with no intervention for biliary AP in patients at high risk of complications.⁶⁷

Chemoprevention and IV fluid management of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Accumulating data support the effectiveness of chemoprevention, pancreatic stent placement, and fluid administration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Multiple RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews indicate that rectal NSAIDs) reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis onset^68-71 and moderate-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis. Additionally, placement of a pancreatic duct stent may decrease the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.³ Guidelines do not comment on fluid administrations for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, but studies have shown that greater periprocedural IV fluid was an independent protective factor against moderate to severe PEP⁷² and was associated with shorter hospital length of stay.⁷³ Recent meta-analyses and RCTs support using LR prior to ERCP to prevent PEP.^74-77 Interestingly, a recent RCT shows that the combination of rectal indomethacin and LR, compared with combination placebo and normal saline reduced the risk of PEP in high-risk patients.⁷⁸

Two ongoing multicenter RCTs will clarify the role of combination therapy. The Dutch FLUYT RCT aims to determine the optimal combination of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural infusion of IV fluids to reduce the incidence of PEP and moderate-severe PEP⁷⁹ and the Stent vs. Indomethacin (SVI) trial aims to determine the whether combination pancreatic stent placement plus rectal indomethacin is superior to monotherapy indomethacin for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk cases.⁸⁰

Implications for clinical practice

The diagnosis and optimal management of AP require a systematic approach with multidisciplinary decision making. Morbidity and mortality in AP are driven by early or late POF, and the latter often is triggered by infected necrosis. Risk stratification of these patients at the point of contact is a commonsense approach to enable triaging of patients to the appropriate level of care. Regardless of pancreatitis severity, recommended treatment interventions include goal-directed IV fluid resuscitation, early feeding by mouth or enteral tube when necessary, avoidance of prophylactic antibiotics, avoidance of probiotics, and urgent ERCP for patients with acute biliary pancreatitis complicated by cholangitis. Key measures for preventing hospital readmission and pancreatitis include same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis and alcohol and smoking cessation. Preventive measures for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing ERCP include rectal indomethacin, prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement, and periprocedural fluid resuscitation.

Dr. Mandalia is a fellow, gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor; Dr. DiMagno is associate professor of medicine, director, comprehensive pancreas program, department of internal medicine, division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Mandalia reports no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tenner S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1400.

2. Besseline M et al. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4, Supplement 2):e1-15.

3. Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1096-101.

4. Vege SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):1103-39.

5. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):254-72.e11.

6. Krishna SG et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(4):482-8.

7. Sellers ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(2):469-78.e1.

8. Brown A et al. JOP. 2008;9(4):408-14.

9. Fagenholz PJ et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(7):491.e1-.e8.

10. McNabb-Baltar J et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(5):687-91.

11. Johnson CD et al. Gut. 2004;53(9):1340-4.

12. Dellinger EP et al. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):875-80.

13. Petrov MS et al. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(3):813-20.

14. Sternby H et al. Ann Surg. Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002766.

15. Huh JH et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(2):178-83.

16. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(3):816-20.

17. Gardner TB et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(10):1070-6.

18. Krishna SG et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(11):1608-19.

19. Lee PJ et al. Pancreas. 2016;45(4):561-4.

20. Mandalia A et al. F1000Research. 2018 Jun 28;7.

21. Majumder S et al. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):540-6.

22. DiMagno MJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(11):920-2.

23. Yadav D, Whitcomb DC. Nature Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;7(3):131-45.

24. Samokhvalov AV et al. EBioMedicine. 2015;2(12):1996-2002.

25. Barkin JA et al. Pancreas. 2017;46(8):1035-8.

26. Chen Y-T et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(4):782-7.

27. Ramos LR et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(1):95-104.

28. Avram MM. Nephron. 1977;18(1):68-71.

29. Lankisch PG et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(4):1401-5.

30. Owyang C et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1979;54(12):769-73.

31. Owyang Cet al. Gut. 1982;23(5):357-61.

32. Quraishi ER et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:2288.

33. Vaziri ND et al. Nephron. 1987;46(4):347-9.

34. Chen HJ et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(10):1731-6.

35. Kirkegard J et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;May;154(6):1729-36.

36. Karlson BM, et al. Gastroenterology. 1997;113(2):587-92.

37. Munigala S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1143-50.e1.

38. Carr RA et al. Pancreatology. 2016;16(4):469-76.

39. Li X et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;18(1):89.

40. Ahmed AU et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(5):738-46.

41. Sankaran SJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1490-500.e1.

42. Berglund L et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(9):2969-89.

43. Catapano AL et al. Atherosclerosis. 2011;217(1):3-46.

44. Pedersen SB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1834-42.

45. Nawaz H et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(10):1497-503.

46. Banks PA et al. Gut. 2013;62(1):102-11.

47. Kondo S et al. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(2):271-5.

48. Meeralam Y et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(6):986-93.

49. Stimac D et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(5):997-1004.

50. Jin DX et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(10):2894-9.

51. Freeman ML. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012;22(3):567-86.

52. De Lisi S et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23(5):367-74.

53. Di MY et al. Ann Int Med. 2016;165(7):482-90.

54. Mounzer R et al. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(7):1476-82; quiz e15-6.

55. Koutroumpakis E et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(12):1707-16.

56. Wu BU et al. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(1):129-35.

57. Buddingh KT et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(1):26-32.

58. Buxbaum J et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(5):755-64.

59. Jabaudon M et al. Crit Car Med. 2018;46(3):e198-e205.

60. Barlass U et al. Gut. 2018;67(4):600-2.

61. Buxbaum JL et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(5):797-803.

62. de-Madaria E et al. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(1):63-72.

63. Bakker OJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1983-93.

64. Tse F et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(5):Cd009779.

65. Kaner EFS et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):Cd004148.

66. da Costa DW et al. Lancet. 2015;386(10000):1261-8.

67. Schepers NJ et al. Trials. 2016;17:5.

68. Vadala di Prampero SF et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28(12):1415-24.

69. Kubiliun NM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(7):1231-9; quiz e70-1.

70. Wan J et al. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017;17(1):43.

71. Yang C et al. Pancreatology. 2017;17(5):681-8.

72. DiMagno MJ et al. Pancreas. 2014;43(4):642-7.

73. Sagi SV et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(6):1316-20.

74. Choi JH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(1):86-92.e1.

75. Wu D et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(8):e68-e76.

76. Zhang ZF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(3):e17-e26.

77. Park CH et al. Endoscopy 2018 Apr;50(4):378-85.

78. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):1005-13.

79. Smeets XJN et al. Trials. 2018;19(1):207.

80. Elmunzer BJ et al. Trials. 2016;17(1):120.

At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.

BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).

Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).

ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.

CD30 expression

One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.

For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.

“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.

“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”

“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”

Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.

“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”

Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.

PTCL subtypes

Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.

At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.

As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).

Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
 

CHOP vs. CHOEP

The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.

A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).

Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.

Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.

However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.

Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.

ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.

BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).

Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).

ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.

CD30 expression

One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.

For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.

“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.

“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”

“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”

Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.

“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”

Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.

PTCL subtypes

Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.

At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.

As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).

Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
 

CHOP vs. CHOEP

The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.

A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).

Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.

Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.

However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.

Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.

ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.

BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).

Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).

ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.

CD30 expression

One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.

For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.

“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.

“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”

“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”

Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.

“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”

Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.

PTCL subtypes

Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.

At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.

As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).

Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
 

CHOP vs. CHOEP

The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.

A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).

Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.

Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.

However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.

Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.

ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In this small trial, most CTCL patients experienced relief from pruritus after one cycle of treatment with BV-len.

Investigators also observed durable responses to the combination, although two patients experienced tumor flare prior to response.

“Because of the tumor flare, we decreased the dose of lenalidomide ... and, since then, it has not been a major problem,” said Basem M. William, MD, principal investigator of the trial and a professor at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“We’re trying to be more reassuring to patients that, if they experience a little bit of tumor flare, as long as it’s not dangerous or life-threatening, if they can hold on with the treatment, this might translate to a later durable response.”

Dr. William and his colleagues presented results from this ongoing, phase 2 trial (NCT03409432) at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Thus far, the investigators have treated 12 patients with relapsed or refractory CTCL or peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The CTCL patients had received at least two lines of skin-directed therapy or one line of systemic therapy, and the PTCL patients had received at least one line of systemic therapy.

Dr. William and his colleagues reported results for 10 patients. Six patients had mycosis fungoides (MF), two had Sézary syndrome (SS), one had CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder, and one had systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

The patients’ median age was 59 (range, 49-74), there were nine males, and patients had received a median of 2 (range, 1-10) prior therapies.

The first seven patients received BV at 1.2 mg/kg and len at 20 mg daily every 3 weeks. However, after the investigators observed tumor flare in two patients, the dose of len was lowered to 10 mg.

Safety

The investigators said all adverse events (AEs) were reversible by stopping therapy, there were no grade 4 AEs, and none of the patients had grade 3 or higher neuropathy.

“We have not seen an excess of neuropathy, which is very important because both brentuximab and lenalidomide are known to cause neuropathy,” Dr. William said. “So we were fairly concerned that there would be a synergistic neurotoxic effect, which we don’t want, but we haven’t seen that.”

The most common treatment-related AE was neutropenia. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in four patients.

Other grade 3 AEs, which occurred in patients on the 20 mg dose of len, were thrombocytopenia (n = 1), dyspnea (n = 1), vertigo (n = 1), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome (n = 1), and tumor flare (n = 1).

Three patients discontinued treatment because of AEs — thrombocytopenia, tumor flare, and DRESS syndrome.

Tumor flare and response

“We did see tumor flare in two initial patients treated with the higher dose of lenalidomide, and we had to remove them from the study for their safety,” Dr. William said. “One of them had a full-blown DRESS syndrome. For their safety, we did have to remove them, but both did experience durable remissions after.”

One of the patients with tumor flare, who had MF, didn’t require treatment for 6 months after going off study. The other patient, who had SS, cleared the clone from his blood but developed DRESS syndrome.

In all, three patients achieved a response to treatment. The ALCL patient had a complete response, and two MF patients achieved a partial response.

Two MF patients and one SS patient had stable disease. The remaining four patients — two with MF, one with SS, and one with lymphoproliferative disorder — progressed.

QOL

The investigators used the Skindex-16 to assess the effect of treatment on QOL.

Five of six evaluable patients with CTCL had a 50% or greater reduction in their Skindex-16 scores after two cycles of treatment. In fact, most patients had relief from pruritus after one cycle, Dr. William said.

“Patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, their biggest problem is with the symptom burden, with pruritus,” he said. “They’re really miserable from all the itching they have. They cannot sleep at night. So we’re fairly excited that most of the patients we’ve treated so far had relief from pruritus just after one cycle.”

Dr. William said he and his colleagues are excited about the overall results they have observed with BV-len, although it’s “still pretty early” in the trial. The investigators are planning to enroll a total of 42 patients and may open the trial at a second center.

The study is sponsored by Ohio State University and the lenalidomide is provided by Celgene. Dr. William reported relationships with miRagen Therapeutics, GuidePoint, Kyowa Kirin, and Celgene.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In this small trial, most CTCL patients experienced relief from pruritus after one cycle of treatment with BV-len.

Investigators also observed durable responses to the combination, although two patients experienced tumor flare prior to response.

“Because of the tumor flare, we decreased the dose of lenalidomide ... and, since then, it has not been a major problem,” said Basem M. William, MD, principal investigator of the trial and a professor at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“We’re trying to be more reassuring to patients that, if they experience a little bit of tumor flare, as long as it’s not dangerous or life-threatening, if they can hold on with the treatment, this might translate to a later durable response.”

Dr. William and his colleagues presented results from this ongoing, phase 2 trial (NCT03409432) at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Thus far, the investigators have treated 12 patients with relapsed or refractory CTCL or peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The CTCL patients had received at least two lines of skin-directed therapy or one line of systemic therapy, and the PTCL patients had received at least one line of systemic therapy.

Dr. William and his colleagues reported results for 10 patients. Six patients had mycosis fungoides (MF), two had Sézary syndrome (SS), one had CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder, and one had systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

The patients’ median age was 59 (range, 49-74), there were nine males, and patients had received a median of 2 (range, 1-10) prior therapies.

The first seven patients received BV at 1.2 mg/kg and len at 20 mg daily every 3 weeks. However, after the investigators observed tumor flare in two patients, the dose of len was lowered to 10 mg.

Safety

The investigators said all adverse events (AEs) were reversible by stopping therapy, there were no grade 4 AEs, and none of the patients had grade 3 or higher neuropathy.

“We have not seen an excess of neuropathy, which is very important because both brentuximab and lenalidomide are known to cause neuropathy,” Dr. William said. “So we were fairly concerned that there would be a synergistic neurotoxic effect, which we don’t want, but we haven’t seen that.”

The most common treatment-related AE was neutropenia. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in four patients.

Other grade 3 AEs, which occurred in patients on the 20 mg dose of len, were thrombocytopenia (n = 1), dyspnea (n = 1), vertigo (n = 1), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome (n = 1), and tumor flare (n = 1).

Three patients discontinued treatment because of AEs — thrombocytopenia, tumor flare, and DRESS syndrome.

Tumor flare and response

“We did see tumor flare in two initial patients treated with the higher dose of lenalidomide, and we had to remove them from the study for their safety,” Dr. William said. “One of them had a full-blown DRESS syndrome. For their safety, we did have to remove them, but both did experience durable remissions after.”

One of the patients with tumor flare, who had MF, didn’t require treatment for 6 months after going off study. The other patient, who had SS, cleared the clone from his blood but developed DRESS syndrome.

In all, three patients achieved a response to treatment. The ALCL patient had a complete response, and two MF patients achieved a partial response.

Two MF patients and one SS patient had stable disease. The remaining four patients — two with MF, one with SS, and one with lymphoproliferative disorder — progressed.

QOL

The investigators used the Skindex-16 to assess the effect of treatment on QOL.

Five of six evaluable patients with CTCL had a 50% or greater reduction in their Skindex-16 scores after two cycles of treatment. In fact, most patients had relief from pruritus after one cycle, Dr. William said.

“Patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, their biggest problem is with the symptom burden, with pruritus,” he said. “They’re really miserable from all the itching they have. They cannot sleep at night. So we’re fairly excited that most of the patients we’ve treated so far had relief from pruritus just after one cycle.”

Dr. William said he and his colleagues are excited about the overall results they have observed with BV-len, although it’s “still pretty early” in the trial. The investigators are planning to enroll a total of 42 patients and may open the trial at a second center.

The study is sponsored by Ohio State University and the lenalidomide is provided by Celgene. Dr. William reported relationships with miRagen Therapeutics, GuidePoint, Kyowa Kirin, and Celgene.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In this small trial, most CTCL patients experienced relief from pruritus after one cycle of treatment with BV-len.

Investigators also observed durable responses to the combination, although two patients experienced tumor flare prior to response.

“Because of the tumor flare, we decreased the dose of lenalidomide ... and, since then, it has not been a major problem,” said Basem M. William, MD, principal investigator of the trial and a professor at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“We’re trying to be more reassuring to patients that, if they experience a little bit of tumor flare, as long as it’s not dangerous or life-threatening, if they can hold on with the treatment, this might translate to a later durable response.”

Dr. William and his colleagues presented results from this ongoing, phase 2 trial (NCT03409432) at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Thus far, the investigators have treated 12 patients with relapsed or refractory CTCL or peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The CTCL patients had received at least two lines of skin-directed therapy or one line of systemic therapy, and the PTCL patients had received at least one line of systemic therapy.

Dr. William and his colleagues reported results for 10 patients. Six patients had mycosis fungoides (MF), two had Sézary syndrome (SS), one had CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder, and one had systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL).

The patients’ median age was 59 (range, 49-74), there were nine males, and patients had received a median of 2 (range, 1-10) prior therapies.

The first seven patients received BV at 1.2 mg/kg and len at 20 mg daily every 3 weeks. However, after the investigators observed tumor flare in two patients, the dose of len was lowered to 10 mg.

Safety

The investigators said all adverse events (AEs) were reversible by stopping therapy, there were no grade 4 AEs, and none of the patients had grade 3 or higher neuropathy.

“We have not seen an excess of neuropathy, which is very important because both brentuximab and lenalidomide are known to cause neuropathy,” Dr. William said. “So we were fairly concerned that there would be a synergistic neurotoxic effect, which we don’t want, but we haven’t seen that.”

The most common treatment-related AE was neutropenia. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in four patients.

Other grade 3 AEs, which occurred in patients on the 20 mg dose of len, were thrombocytopenia (n = 1), dyspnea (n = 1), vertigo (n = 1), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome (n = 1), and tumor flare (n = 1).

Three patients discontinued treatment because of AEs — thrombocytopenia, tumor flare, and DRESS syndrome.

Tumor flare and response

“We did see tumor flare in two initial patients treated with the higher dose of lenalidomide, and we had to remove them from the study for their safety,” Dr. William said. “One of them had a full-blown DRESS syndrome. For their safety, we did have to remove them, but both did experience durable remissions after.”

One of the patients with tumor flare, who had MF, didn’t require treatment for 6 months after going off study. The other patient, who had SS, cleared the clone from his blood but developed DRESS syndrome.

In all, three patients achieved a response to treatment. The ALCL patient had a complete response, and two MF patients achieved a partial response.

Two MF patients and one SS patient had stable disease. The remaining four patients — two with MF, one with SS, and one with lymphoproliferative disorder — progressed.

QOL

The investigators used the Skindex-16 to assess the effect of treatment on QOL.

Five of six evaluable patients with CTCL had a 50% or greater reduction in their Skindex-16 scores after two cycles of treatment. In fact, most patients had relief from pruritus after one cycle, Dr. William said.

“Patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, their biggest problem is with the symptom burden, with pruritus,” he said. “They’re really miserable from all the itching they have. They cannot sleep at night. So we’re fairly excited that most of the patients we’ve treated so far had relief from pruritus just after one cycle.”

Dr. William said he and his colleagues are excited about the overall results they have observed with BV-len, although it’s “still pretty early” in the trial. The investigators are planning to enroll a total of 42 patients and may open the trial at a second center.

The study is sponsored by Ohio State University and the lenalidomide is provided by Celgene. Dr. William reported relationships with miRagen Therapeutics, GuidePoint, Kyowa Kirin, and Celgene.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In a video interview, meeting cochair Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, discussed a few presentations that addressed epigenetics in T-cell lymphomas.

Stephen Baylin, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, gave the meeting’s keynote address, which focused on the idea that epigenetic therapy can enhance immune checkpoint therapy.

Susan Bates, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, presented data that suggest romidepsin and other histone deacetylase inhibitors fight cutaneous T-cell lymphoma via epigenetic effects on gene expression, as well as DNA damage.

And Enrica Marchi, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, discussed the use of epigenetic-based combination therapies to improve responses in T-cell lymphomas.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In a video interview, meeting cochair Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, discussed a few presentations that addressed epigenetics in T-cell lymphomas.

Stephen Baylin, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, gave the meeting’s keynote address, which focused on the idea that epigenetic therapy can enhance immune checkpoint therapy.

Susan Bates, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, presented data that suggest romidepsin and other histone deacetylase inhibitors fight cutaneous T-cell lymphoma via epigenetic effects on gene expression, as well as DNA damage.

And Enrica Marchi, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, discussed the use of epigenetic-based combination therapies to improve responses in T-cell lymphomas.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

In a video interview, meeting cochair Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, discussed a few presentations that addressed epigenetics in T-cell lymphomas.

Stephen Baylin, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, gave the meeting’s keynote address, which focused on the idea that epigenetic therapy can enhance immune checkpoint therapy.

Susan Bates, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, presented data that suggest romidepsin and other histone deacetylase inhibitors fight cutaneous T-cell lymphoma via epigenetic effects on gene expression, as well as DNA damage.

And Enrica Marchi, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, discussed the use of epigenetic-based combination therapies to improve responses in T-cell lymphomas.

The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]