User login
Early Oseltamivir Benefits Hospitalized Influenza Patients
TOPLINE:
Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza.
METHODOLOGY:
- The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
- Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
- They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
- Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
- The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
- Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
- They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
- Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza.
METHODOLOGY:
- The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
- Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
- They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
- Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
- The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
- Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
- They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
- Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza.
METHODOLOGY:
- The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
- Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
- They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
- Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
- The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
- Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
- They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
- Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More Biologics May Be Breaking Through for COPD
New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.
The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.
The Biology Behind the Biologics
T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.
Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.
Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.
In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.
Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.
Fitting the Biologic to the Patient
Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.
Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.
In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.
Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.
Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.
In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.
In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.
Takeaways and Next Steps
“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.
Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.
Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.
Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.
Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.
Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.
The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.
The Biology Behind the Biologics
T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.
Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.
Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.
In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.
Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.
Fitting the Biologic to the Patient
Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.
Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.
In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.
Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.
Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.
In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.
In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.
Takeaways and Next Steps
“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.
Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.
Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.
Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.
Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.
Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.
The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.
The Biology Behind the Biologics
T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.
Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.
Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.
In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.
Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.
Fitting the Biologic to the Patient
Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.
Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.
In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.
Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.
Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.
In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.
In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.
Takeaways and Next Steps
“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.
Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.
Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.
Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.
Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.
Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
H5N1 Avian Influenza Spreads Across North America
It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.
either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.
The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected.
Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.
Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.
The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada
The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.
An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.
How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.
Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years
The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.
Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.
More Vulnerable Than Ever
If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.
The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.
The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.
If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.
In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.
either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.
The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected.
Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.
Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.
The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada
The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.
An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.
How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.
Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years
The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.
Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.
More Vulnerable Than Ever
If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.
The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.
The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.
If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.
In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s been a while since I’ve discussed the H5N1 avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b and its rapid spread in North America. I hope the facts prove me wrong, but many experts have been warning for some time that ideal conditions are forming for this virus, which for now only causes zoonoses, to pose a pandemic threat.
either because they work in other medical fields or think that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic was a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to be repeated in the short term.
The Virus Has Flown to Hawaii
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, the infection has now affected more than 500 cattle herds in 15 states. There are about 30 outbreaks reported in poultry, equally distributed between backyard and farm-raised birds, primarily located in California. Here alone, over 3 million birds have been affected.
Wild birds are believed to have transported the highly pathogenic virus via migration routes across the Pacific, introducing it to Hawaii for the first time. Just days after wastewater analysis detected the presence of H5N1 on the island of Oahu, home to the capital Honolulu, the first outbreak was promptly reported, killing at least a dozen ducks and geese in a backyard coop. Some of these birds had been taken in early November to the Mililani Pet Fair, a sort of domestic animal festival. Local authorities recommended that anyone who attended the fair, touched a duck or goose at the event, and developed symptoms including fever, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis, should isolate and seek medical advice.
Meanwhile, more than 50 farmers, animal handlers, or workers involved in the slaughter of cattle or poultry across seven states have been confirmed infected, presumably contracted at their workplace. The latest case, diagnosed recently in Oregon, presented with severe conjunctivitis and mild respiratory symptoms. More than half of these patients have been identified in recent weeks in California, where active surveillance measures have been implemented. However, there is strong suspicion that the actual number of people infected with mild symptoms in the rest of the country is much, much higher.
The Red Alert Lights Up in Canada
The level of concern was raised further with news of the first severe — indeed very severe — case of H5N1 avian influenza originating from the western edge of Canada. A teenager (gender not disclosed), previously healthy and without risk factors, was hospitalized with severe respiratory failure in the intensive care unit at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. The source of the infection is unknown, similar to only one other case in Missouri involving an adult already hospitalized for other reasons, which was identified by chance through influenza surveillance programs. We also know that the Canadian adolescent does not live on a farm and had no known contact with potentially infected animals. The only suspicions focus on the family dog, euthanized owing to unspecified health problems in the early days of the epidemiologic investigation. Although the dog tested negative for avian influenza, a necropsy will be conducted to rule out its involvement in the transmission chain.
An initial characterization of the virus has linked it to genotype D1.1, which is circulating among wild birds and poultry farms in Canada’s westernmost province, rather than the strain typical of dairy cows in the United States. The publication of the complete viral sequence over the past weekend has, for the first time, highlighted mutations that could enhance the virus’s ability to infect human cells.
How do we know this? From the highly contested “gain-of-function” studies, which artificially modify viruses to understand which genomic points require the most surveillance — those mutations that can make the infectious agent more virulent or more transmissible between people.
Under Special Surveillance for 20 Years
The influenza A (H5N1) avian virus is not new or previously unknown, like SARS-CoV-2, and this could (in theory) give us a slight advantage. We have known about it for decades, and it began infecting humans about 20 years ago, causing pneumonia with respiratory failure. It proved lethal in about half of the cases, but only in people who had close contact with infected poultry, primarily in Southeast Asia.
Hundreds of other human cases occurred worldwide, but always in low-income countries with poor hygiene conditions and where families lived in close contact with animals. This contributed to a false sense of security in Europe and North America, where the threat has been consistently underestimated. Despite an estimated fatality rate of around 50%, the media often labeled scientists’ warnings and health authorities’ efforts to remain prepared as false alarms, tainted by suspicions of catering to the interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Some people may recall the scandal involving Tamiflu, the Roche antiviral oseltamivir, that governments stockpiled when there were fears that the avian virus might acquire the ability to spread among humans. It was dubbed “a false antidote for a false pandemic,” referring to the potential avian pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, improperly called “swine flu,” and which turned out to be less severe than expected. There was talk of €2.64 billion being “wasted” to “please” the manufacturer. Although the Cochrane Collaboration made legitimate demands for rigor and transparency in conducting and publishing clinical trials, much of the public, and the journalists who wrote the stories, cared little about these technical aspects. The prevailing message was that stockpiling drugs (or vaccines) for a disease we don’t even know will occur is a waste of taxpayers’ money rather than a prudent preventive measure.
More Vulnerable Than Ever
If we were to ascribe strategic thinking to the virus, which it is not capable of, we might argue that it chose the ideal moment to conquer the world. It began circulating in the new clade in 2020, when experts and authorities were focused on the coronavirus. It spread from birds to marine mammals and finally to cattle, exploiting the public’s post-pandemic fatigue, as people no longer wanted to hear about infectious diseases and containment measures. It ultimately rode the wave of political polarization that irrationally equates prevention with supposed cowardice on the left, and recklessness with courageous freedom on the right.
The coincidence between the future appointments announced by the incoming Trump administration and the virus’s accelerated spread deserves attention from decision-makers and health professionals worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should have taught us that ignoring a threat doesn’t make it go away, if not in our health, then at least in our wallet. The economic repercussions of a virus circulating among animals crucial to our food chain and national economies should concern everyone, well before the threat crosses the ocean, because only then can we defend ourselves.
The proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, is a proponent of the supposed benefits of raw milk, which could serve as a potent vector for the virus. He is ideologically opposed to vaccinations. It’s hard to imagine he would utilize the H5N1 vaccine stockpiles held by the US government for a campaign starting at least with farmers, as was done prophylactically in Finland with products jointly procured by 15 European countries — a group the Italian government decided not to join.
If Kennedy indeed becomes responsible for US public health, it’s reasonable to fear that, in the name of freedom, he will try to delay as much as possible — even if necessary — the obligation to undergo testing and wear masks, not to mention more restrictive infection containment measures. It’s also unlikely he would support and promote the development of new mRNA products already under study, which would become indispensable if the disease begins to spread more easily among people, as well as animals. In such a case, traditional influenza vaccine cultivation methods using chicken eggs would prove too slow and quantitatively insufficient, especially if the virus continues to circulate among poultry.
In short, let’s keep our fingers crossed, but recognize that crossing our fingers might not be enough.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could Biomarkers Help to Detect Lung Disease Earlier in Systemic JIA?
WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.
“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.
Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.
Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.
“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”
Study Results
The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.
Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.
The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).
There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).
Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).
Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).
Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).
In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).
While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.
Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:
- MMP-7 (P = .001)
- IFN gamma (P = .008)
- CCL11 (P < .0001)
- CCL17 (P = .002)
- CCL15 (P < .0001)
- MCP-1 (P = .0003)
- MCP-3 (P = .02)
- CCL25 (P < .0001)
- CD25 (P < .0001)
- GDF-15 (P < .0001)
- TRAIL (P < .0001)
- IL-23 (P = .002)
They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.
The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.
The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.
“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.
Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.
Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.
“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”
Study Results
The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.
Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.
The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).
There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).
Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).
Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).
Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).
In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).
While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.
Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:
- MMP-7 (P = .001)
- IFN gamma (P = .008)
- CCL11 (P < .0001)
- CCL17 (P = .002)
- CCL15 (P < .0001)
- MCP-1 (P = .0003)
- MCP-3 (P = .02)
- CCL25 (P < .0001)
- CD25 (P < .0001)
- GDF-15 (P < .0001)
- TRAIL (P < .0001)
- IL-23 (P = .002)
They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.
The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.
The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.
“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.
Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.
Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.
“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”
Study Results
The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.
Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.
The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).
There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).
Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).
Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).
Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).
In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).
While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.
Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:
- MMP-7 (P = .001)
- IFN gamma (P = .008)
- CCL11 (P < .0001)
- CCL17 (P = .002)
- CCL15 (P < .0001)
- MCP-1 (P = .0003)
- MCP-3 (P = .02)
- CCL25 (P < .0001)
- CD25 (P < .0001)
- GDF-15 (P < .0001)
- TRAIL (P < .0001)
- IL-23 (P = .002)
They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.
The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.
The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2024
FDA Approves Durvalumab for Limited-Stage SCLC
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung CT Can Detect Coronary Artery Disease, Predict Death
“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.
“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”
The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Potential Risk Reduction
In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.
The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.
At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.
A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.
On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).
Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).
“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.
“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”
Managing Other Findings
Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”
However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.
Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”
Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”
Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”
Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.
“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”
Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.
No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.
“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”
The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Potential Risk Reduction
In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.
The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.
At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.
A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.
On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).
Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).
“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.
“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”
Managing Other Findings
Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”
However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.
Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”
Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”
Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”
Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.
“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”
Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.
No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.
“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”
The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Potential Risk Reduction
In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.
The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.
At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.
A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.
On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).
Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).
“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.
“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”
Managing Other Findings
Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”
However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.
Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”
Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”
Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”
Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.
“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”
Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.
No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
Navigating new ACR/CHEST guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-ILD
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a frequent complication of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.1 The risk of ILD, however, is higher in a subset of SARDs—rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic sclerosis (SSc), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and Sjögren’s disease (SjD). Accordingly, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) jointly endorsed the recent publication of two separate guidelines detailing recommendations for (1) screening and monitoring and (2) treatment of ILD in adults with SARDs.2,3 These guidelines mark the first of their kind, aiming to promote multidisciplinary collaboration and comprehensive, standardized care. Below, we summarize the major highlights from these guidelines.
Screening and monitoring
For patients with SARD, who should be screened for ILD and how?
The prevalence of ILD is not equally distributed amongst those with SARDs, and the heterogeneity poses a challenge when creating guidelines applicable to all.4 The ACR/CHEST guidelines focus on recommendations for those with SARDs at highest risk of ILD (RA, SSc, IIM, MCTD, and SjD), while excluding pediatric SARDs, sarcoidosis, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, vasculitides, systemic lupus erythematosus, and unclassifiable ILD.2,3 As the guidelines’ recommendations are all conditional and based on low-quality evidence, an individualized ILD screening approach should be implemented for patients with SARDs with regard to risk.
For patients with these high-risk SARDs, screening for ILD with pulmonary function testing (PFT) and high-resolution chest tomography (HRCT) is conditionally recommended at the time of diagnosis. This recommendation was founded on observational studies showing PFTs have low sensitivity and high specificity while HRCT has high sensitivity and low specificity for detection of ILD. The combination was also favored, as it provides complementary information on functional impact (PFTs) and radiologic pattern (HRCT).
The guideline committee conditionally recommended against several routine tests due to poor performance—chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy. There was a strong recommendation against pursuing surgical lung biopsy due to high-quality evidence for harm and low-quality evidence for benefit. If initial screening is negative, repeat screening is left to the discretion of the treating physician; nevertheless, for patients with high-risk features, yearly rescreening should be considered through shared decision-making.
How should patients with SARD-ILD be monitored?
Disease monitoring following a SARD-ILD diagnosis is important. PFTs and HRCT were conditionally recommended over PFTs alone; however, the consensus was that HRCT should be less frequent than PFTs. Ambulatory desaturation monitoring was also conditionally recommended. The committee conditionally recommended against chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, and bronchoscopy for screening.
The frequency of monitoring should be guided by patient symptoms, risk profile, and treatment response due to substantial clinical variation. For this reason, the committee made suggestions only to steer clinicians. For patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested given the high risk of early, aggressive disease. For all SARD-ILDs, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested early after diagnosis; less frequent testing should be considered for those with stable disease. No suggestion regarding the frequency of monitoring with HRCT was made; however, HRCT may be useful as a complementary test to PFTs in situations of uncertainty.
Treatment
First-line treatment
What are considerations when using glucocorticoids in patients with SARD-ILD?
The decision to treat SARD-ILD should incorporate patient symptoms, disease activity, risk of progression, and goals of care. For almost all SARD-ILDs, short-term glucocorticoids (ie, <3 months) are considered first-line treatment. The exception is SSc-ILD, for which there is a strong recommendation against glucocorticoids as first-line therapy due to concern for precipitating scleroderma renal crisis. Similarly, glucocorticoids should be used cautiously in those patients with MCTD and SSc features or IIM-ILD with SSc antibodies, though they are not strictly contraindicated.
What are the recommended options for a steroid-sparing approach?
An important goal in the treatment of SARD-ILD is tapering off glucocorticoids to avoid toxicity. Steroid-sparing is used for those requiring long-term immunosuppression. Considerations when choosing steroid-sparing agents include contraindications, side-effect profile, and effect on active extrapulmonary symptoms.
The committee conditionally recommended a hierarchy of first-line steroid-sparing agents via a voting consensus. Mycophenolate was conditionally recommended as the preferred agent in all SARD-ILDs for several reasons: (1) positive outcomes in trials of SSc-ILD, (2) additional limited data in other SARDs, (3) favorable side-effect profile, and (4) physicians’ familiarity. Multiple other first-line agents were recommended by disease type. These are summarized in Figure 1.
Progression on first-line treatment
What are considerations for patients with progression despite first-line ILD treatment?
The goal of first-line treatment is to improve or stabilize lung function and symptoms. Unfortunately, some patients with SARD-ILD will progress despite appropriate first-line therapy. Progression of ILD was defined using criteria from the INBUILD trial—a decline in FVC >10% predicted or a FVC decline between 5% and 10% accompanied by worsening respiratory symptoms or radiologic fibrosis within a 24-month period.5 When progression is diagnosed, the goal is to add on or switch to an agent based on patient-specific factors or preferences.
Short-term steroids may have a role, particularly if a patient is experiencing an acute exacerbation; however, long-term steroid therapy (at least three to six months) is not recommended. For those who are on full-dose, first-line therapy but still progressing, addition of an alternative agent should be considered. In some instances, addition of an antifibrotic agent is recommended. If progression continues despite multiple agents, referral for lung transplantation should be discussed.
What are some of the management options for patients with rapidly progressive ILD?
Rapidly progressive (RP)-ILD is considered when a patient exhibits rapid progression in supplemental oxygen needs within days to weeks without an alternative cause. First-line treatment is typically pulse IV methylprednisolone in addition to one to two other immunosuppressive medications; nonsteroidal immunosuppressive options include rituximab, cyclophosphamide, IV immunoglobulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, or Janus kinase inhibitors. The guidelines conditionally recommend double or triple therapy for most patients with SARD and RP-ILD (combination of steroids and one or two of the listed agents). For patients with confirmed or suspected anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA-5) RP-ILD, triple therapy is conditionally recommended (steroids and two additional agents) due to substantial risk of death. Of note, for patients with SSc and RP-ILD, there is no consensus on whether corticosteroids should be used. Treatment selection ultimately depends on disease severity, concern for infection, and suspected or confirmed MDA-5 RP-ILD. Finally, the committee recommended early referral for lung transplantation for patients whose disease progresses while on optimal medical treatment.
Conclusion
SARDs represent a diverse group of rheumatologic diseases associated with high risk of ILD. The ACR/CHEST guidelines are a first attempt to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-ILD. They represent an essential tool for management of SARD-ILD . The studies utilized to create them were mostly observational, and none had examined the relationship between disease screening, monitoring, and patient-centered outcomes. As a result, the recommendations are largely conditional. Additional studies are needed to examine the impact of surveillance in different populations, determine risk factors for RP-ILD in patients with SARD, and further investigate the most effective treatments.
Dr. Castellanos and Dr. Esposito are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Dr. Zhao is with the Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
References
1. Fischer A, du Bois R. Interstitial lung disease in connective tissue disorders. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):689-698.
2. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the screening and monitoring of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1070-1082.
3. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1051-1069.
4. Jeganathan N, Sathananthan M. Connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease: prevalence, patterns, predictors, prognosis, and treatment. Lung. 2020;198(5):735-759.
5. Flaherty KR, Wells AU, Cottin V, et al. Nintedanib in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1718-1727.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a frequent complication of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.1 The risk of ILD, however, is higher in a subset of SARDs—rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic sclerosis (SSc), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and Sjögren’s disease (SjD). Accordingly, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) jointly endorsed the recent publication of two separate guidelines detailing recommendations for (1) screening and monitoring and (2) treatment of ILD in adults with SARDs.2,3 These guidelines mark the first of their kind, aiming to promote multidisciplinary collaboration and comprehensive, standardized care. Below, we summarize the major highlights from these guidelines.
Screening and monitoring
For patients with SARD, who should be screened for ILD and how?
The prevalence of ILD is not equally distributed amongst those with SARDs, and the heterogeneity poses a challenge when creating guidelines applicable to all.4 The ACR/CHEST guidelines focus on recommendations for those with SARDs at highest risk of ILD (RA, SSc, IIM, MCTD, and SjD), while excluding pediatric SARDs, sarcoidosis, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, vasculitides, systemic lupus erythematosus, and unclassifiable ILD.2,3 As the guidelines’ recommendations are all conditional and based on low-quality evidence, an individualized ILD screening approach should be implemented for patients with SARDs with regard to risk.
For patients with these high-risk SARDs, screening for ILD with pulmonary function testing (PFT) and high-resolution chest tomography (HRCT) is conditionally recommended at the time of diagnosis. This recommendation was founded on observational studies showing PFTs have low sensitivity and high specificity while HRCT has high sensitivity and low specificity for detection of ILD. The combination was also favored, as it provides complementary information on functional impact (PFTs) and radiologic pattern (HRCT).
The guideline committee conditionally recommended against several routine tests due to poor performance—chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy. There was a strong recommendation against pursuing surgical lung biopsy due to high-quality evidence for harm and low-quality evidence for benefit. If initial screening is negative, repeat screening is left to the discretion of the treating physician; nevertheless, for patients with high-risk features, yearly rescreening should be considered through shared decision-making.
How should patients with SARD-ILD be monitored?
Disease monitoring following a SARD-ILD diagnosis is important. PFTs and HRCT were conditionally recommended over PFTs alone; however, the consensus was that HRCT should be less frequent than PFTs. Ambulatory desaturation monitoring was also conditionally recommended. The committee conditionally recommended against chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, and bronchoscopy for screening.
The frequency of monitoring should be guided by patient symptoms, risk profile, and treatment response due to substantial clinical variation. For this reason, the committee made suggestions only to steer clinicians. For patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested given the high risk of early, aggressive disease. For all SARD-ILDs, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested early after diagnosis; less frequent testing should be considered for those with stable disease. No suggestion regarding the frequency of monitoring with HRCT was made; however, HRCT may be useful as a complementary test to PFTs in situations of uncertainty.
Treatment
First-line treatment
What are considerations when using glucocorticoids in patients with SARD-ILD?
The decision to treat SARD-ILD should incorporate patient symptoms, disease activity, risk of progression, and goals of care. For almost all SARD-ILDs, short-term glucocorticoids (ie, <3 months) are considered first-line treatment. The exception is SSc-ILD, for which there is a strong recommendation against glucocorticoids as first-line therapy due to concern for precipitating scleroderma renal crisis. Similarly, glucocorticoids should be used cautiously in those patients with MCTD and SSc features or IIM-ILD with SSc antibodies, though they are not strictly contraindicated.
What are the recommended options for a steroid-sparing approach?
An important goal in the treatment of SARD-ILD is tapering off glucocorticoids to avoid toxicity. Steroid-sparing is used for those requiring long-term immunosuppression. Considerations when choosing steroid-sparing agents include contraindications, side-effect profile, and effect on active extrapulmonary symptoms.
The committee conditionally recommended a hierarchy of first-line steroid-sparing agents via a voting consensus. Mycophenolate was conditionally recommended as the preferred agent in all SARD-ILDs for several reasons: (1) positive outcomes in trials of SSc-ILD, (2) additional limited data in other SARDs, (3) favorable side-effect profile, and (4) physicians’ familiarity. Multiple other first-line agents were recommended by disease type. These are summarized in Figure 1.
Progression on first-line treatment
What are considerations for patients with progression despite first-line ILD treatment?
The goal of first-line treatment is to improve or stabilize lung function and symptoms. Unfortunately, some patients with SARD-ILD will progress despite appropriate first-line therapy. Progression of ILD was defined using criteria from the INBUILD trial—a decline in FVC >10% predicted or a FVC decline between 5% and 10% accompanied by worsening respiratory symptoms or radiologic fibrosis within a 24-month period.5 When progression is diagnosed, the goal is to add on or switch to an agent based on patient-specific factors or preferences.
Short-term steroids may have a role, particularly if a patient is experiencing an acute exacerbation; however, long-term steroid therapy (at least three to six months) is not recommended. For those who are on full-dose, first-line therapy but still progressing, addition of an alternative agent should be considered. In some instances, addition of an antifibrotic agent is recommended. If progression continues despite multiple agents, referral for lung transplantation should be discussed.
What are some of the management options for patients with rapidly progressive ILD?
Rapidly progressive (RP)-ILD is considered when a patient exhibits rapid progression in supplemental oxygen needs within days to weeks without an alternative cause. First-line treatment is typically pulse IV methylprednisolone in addition to one to two other immunosuppressive medications; nonsteroidal immunosuppressive options include rituximab, cyclophosphamide, IV immunoglobulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, or Janus kinase inhibitors. The guidelines conditionally recommend double or triple therapy for most patients with SARD and RP-ILD (combination of steroids and one or two of the listed agents). For patients with confirmed or suspected anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA-5) RP-ILD, triple therapy is conditionally recommended (steroids and two additional agents) due to substantial risk of death. Of note, for patients with SSc and RP-ILD, there is no consensus on whether corticosteroids should be used. Treatment selection ultimately depends on disease severity, concern for infection, and suspected or confirmed MDA-5 RP-ILD. Finally, the committee recommended early referral for lung transplantation for patients whose disease progresses while on optimal medical treatment.
Conclusion
SARDs represent a diverse group of rheumatologic diseases associated with high risk of ILD. The ACR/CHEST guidelines are a first attempt to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-ILD. They represent an essential tool for management of SARD-ILD . The studies utilized to create them were mostly observational, and none had examined the relationship between disease screening, monitoring, and patient-centered outcomes. As a result, the recommendations are largely conditional. Additional studies are needed to examine the impact of surveillance in different populations, determine risk factors for RP-ILD in patients with SARD, and further investigate the most effective treatments.
Dr. Castellanos and Dr. Esposito are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Dr. Zhao is with the Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
References
1. Fischer A, du Bois R. Interstitial lung disease in connective tissue disorders. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):689-698.
2. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the screening and monitoring of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1070-1082.
3. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1051-1069.
4. Jeganathan N, Sathananthan M. Connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease: prevalence, patterns, predictors, prognosis, and treatment. Lung. 2020;198(5):735-759.
5. Flaherty KR, Wells AU, Cottin V, et al. Nintedanib in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1718-1727.
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a frequent complication of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.1 The risk of ILD, however, is higher in a subset of SARDs—rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic sclerosis (SSc), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and Sjögren’s disease (SjD). Accordingly, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) jointly endorsed the recent publication of two separate guidelines detailing recommendations for (1) screening and monitoring and (2) treatment of ILD in adults with SARDs.2,3 These guidelines mark the first of their kind, aiming to promote multidisciplinary collaboration and comprehensive, standardized care. Below, we summarize the major highlights from these guidelines.
Screening and monitoring
For patients with SARD, who should be screened for ILD and how?
The prevalence of ILD is not equally distributed amongst those with SARDs, and the heterogeneity poses a challenge when creating guidelines applicable to all.4 The ACR/CHEST guidelines focus on recommendations for those with SARDs at highest risk of ILD (RA, SSc, IIM, MCTD, and SjD), while excluding pediatric SARDs, sarcoidosis, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, vasculitides, systemic lupus erythematosus, and unclassifiable ILD.2,3 As the guidelines’ recommendations are all conditional and based on low-quality evidence, an individualized ILD screening approach should be implemented for patients with SARDs with regard to risk.
For patients with these high-risk SARDs, screening for ILD with pulmonary function testing (PFT) and high-resolution chest tomography (HRCT) is conditionally recommended at the time of diagnosis. This recommendation was founded on observational studies showing PFTs have low sensitivity and high specificity while HRCT has high sensitivity and low specificity for detection of ILD. The combination was also favored, as it provides complementary information on functional impact (PFTs) and radiologic pattern (HRCT).
The guideline committee conditionally recommended against several routine tests due to poor performance—chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy. There was a strong recommendation against pursuing surgical lung biopsy due to high-quality evidence for harm and low-quality evidence for benefit. If initial screening is negative, repeat screening is left to the discretion of the treating physician; nevertheless, for patients with high-risk features, yearly rescreening should be considered through shared decision-making.
How should patients with SARD-ILD be monitored?
Disease monitoring following a SARD-ILD diagnosis is important. PFTs and HRCT were conditionally recommended over PFTs alone; however, the consensus was that HRCT should be less frequent than PFTs. Ambulatory desaturation monitoring was also conditionally recommended. The committee conditionally recommended against chest radiography, six-minute walk distance, and bronchoscopy for screening.
The frequency of monitoring should be guided by patient symptoms, risk profile, and treatment response due to substantial clinical variation. For this reason, the committee made suggestions only to steer clinicians. For patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested given the high risk of early, aggressive disease. For all SARD-ILDs, more frequent PFT monitoring was suggested early after diagnosis; less frequent testing should be considered for those with stable disease. No suggestion regarding the frequency of monitoring with HRCT was made; however, HRCT may be useful as a complementary test to PFTs in situations of uncertainty.
Treatment
First-line treatment
What are considerations when using glucocorticoids in patients with SARD-ILD?
The decision to treat SARD-ILD should incorporate patient symptoms, disease activity, risk of progression, and goals of care. For almost all SARD-ILDs, short-term glucocorticoids (ie, <3 months) are considered first-line treatment. The exception is SSc-ILD, for which there is a strong recommendation against glucocorticoids as first-line therapy due to concern for precipitating scleroderma renal crisis. Similarly, glucocorticoids should be used cautiously in those patients with MCTD and SSc features or IIM-ILD with SSc antibodies, though they are not strictly contraindicated.
What are the recommended options for a steroid-sparing approach?
An important goal in the treatment of SARD-ILD is tapering off glucocorticoids to avoid toxicity. Steroid-sparing is used for those requiring long-term immunosuppression. Considerations when choosing steroid-sparing agents include contraindications, side-effect profile, and effect on active extrapulmonary symptoms.
The committee conditionally recommended a hierarchy of first-line steroid-sparing agents via a voting consensus. Mycophenolate was conditionally recommended as the preferred agent in all SARD-ILDs for several reasons: (1) positive outcomes in trials of SSc-ILD, (2) additional limited data in other SARDs, (3) favorable side-effect profile, and (4) physicians’ familiarity. Multiple other first-line agents were recommended by disease type. These are summarized in Figure 1.
Progression on first-line treatment
What are considerations for patients with progression despite first-line ILD treatment?
The goal of first-line treatment is to improve or stabilize lung function and symptoms. Unfortunately, some patients with SARD-ILD will progress despite appropriate first-line therapy. Progression of ILD was defined using criteria from the INBUILD trial—a decline in FVC >10% predicted or a FVC decline between 5% and 10% accompanied by worsening respiratory symptoms or radiologic fibrosis within a 24-month period.5 When progression is diagnosed, the goal is to add on or switch to an agent based on patient-specific factors or preferences.
Short-term steroids may have a role, particularly if a patient is experiencing an acute exacerbation; however, long-term steroid therapy (at least three to six months) is not recommended. For those who are on full-dose, first-line therapy but still progressing, addition of an alternative agent should be considered. In some instances, addition of an antifibrotic agent is recommended. If progression continues despite multiple agents, referral for lung transplantation should be discussed.
What are some of the management options for patients with rapidly progressive ILD?
Rapidly progressive (RP)-ILD is considered when a patient exhibits rapid progression in supplemental oxygen needs within days to weeks without an alternative cause. First-line treatment is typically pulse IV methylprednisolone in addition to one to two other immunosuppressive medications; nonsteroidal immunosuppressive options include rituximab, cyclophosphamide, IV immunoglobulin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, or Janus kinase inhibitors. The guidelines conditionally recommend double or triple therapy for most patients with SARD and RP-ILD (combination of steroids and one or two of the listed agents). For patients with confirmed or suspected anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA-5) RP-ILD, triple therapy is conditionally recommended (steroids and two additional agents) due to substantial risk of death. Of note, for patients with SSc and RP-ILD, there is no consensus on whether corticosteroids should be used. Treatment selection ultimately depends on disease severity, concern for infection, and suspected or confirmed MDA-5 RP-ILD. Finally, the committee recommended early referral for lung transplantation for patients whose disease progresses while on optimal medical treatment.
Conclusion
SARDs represent a diverse group of rheumatologic diseases associated with high risk of ILD. The ACR/CHEST guidelines are a first attempt to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-ILD. They represent an essential tool for management of SARD-ILD . The studies utilized to create them were mostly observational, and none had examined the relationship between disease screening, monitoring, and patient-centered outcomes. As a result, the recommendations are largely conditional. Additional studies are needed to examine the impact of surveillance in different populations, determine risk factors for RP-ILD in patients with SARD, and further investigate the most effective treatments.
Dr. Castellanos and Dr. Esposito are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Dr. Zhao is with the Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
References
1. Fischer A, du Bois R. Interstitial lung disease in connective tissue disorders. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):689-698.
2. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the screening and monitoring of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1070-1082.
3. Johnson SR, Bernstein EJ, Bolster MB, et al. 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guideline for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2024;76(8):1051-1069.
4. Jeganathan N, Sathananthan M. Connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease: prevalence, patterns, predictors, prognosis, and treatment. Lung. 2020;198(5):735-759.
5. Flaherty KR, Wells AU, Cottin V, et al. Nintedanib in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1718-1727.
FDA Approves Bizengri for NSCLC and Pancreatic Cancers Harboring NRG1 Gene Fusion
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.
The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.
“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”
The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.
“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”
Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pertussis Cases Spike in November
Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.
None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.
The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.
Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.
Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.
None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.
The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.
Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.
Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.
None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.
The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.
Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.
Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BCG Vaccine May Protect Against Long COVID Symptoms
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
- Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
- Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
- The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
- At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
- At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
- Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.
IN PRACTICE:
“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
- Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
- Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
- The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
- At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
- At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
- Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.
IN PRACTICE:
“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
- Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
- Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
- The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
- At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
- At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
- Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.
IN PRACTICE:
“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.