Sara Freeman

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).

Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.

Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.

Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”

The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.

Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”

Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus

Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”

Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.

Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.

“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
 

About the BILAG-BR and results

“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.

Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.

A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.

The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.

A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.

The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.

BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).

There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).

Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).

Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).

Limitations

“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.

“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.

“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.

Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”

Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.

Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.

Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).

Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.

Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.

Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”

The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.

Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”

Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus

Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”

Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.

Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.

“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
 

About the BILAG-BR and results

“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.

Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.

A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.

The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.

A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.

The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.

BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).

There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).

Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).

Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).

Limitations

“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.

“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.

“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.

Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”

Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.

Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.

Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).

Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.

Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.

Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”

The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.

Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”

Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus

Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”

Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.

Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.

“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
 

About the BILAG-BR and results

“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.

Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.

A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.

The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.

A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.

The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.

BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).

There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).

Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).

Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).

Limitations

“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.

“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.

“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.

Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”

Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.

Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

An increase in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for lung cancer has been one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to initial data from the COVID-RT Lung study.

The U.K.-based study showed that patients with stage I-III lung cancer who were set to undergo radiotherapy with curative intent were more likely to receive fewer fractions at higher doses when treated between April and October 2020. During that period, 19% of patients had their radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule changed to deviate from standard care.

In addition, 8% of patients who were set to undergo surgery ultimately received radiotherapy instead, presumably to ease pressures on already struggling intensive care services, said Kathryn Banfill, MBChB, of Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England.

Dr. Banfill presented results from the COVID-RT Lung study at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 203MO).


 

New guidelines prompt study

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, European and joint European and North American guidelines were issued to try to ensure that lung cancer patients would continue to receive the best possible treatment under the circumstances. This included guidance on how and when to use treatments such as radiotherapy.

One U.K. guideline included recommendations on the use of hypofractionation in the COVID-19 era. The recommendations focused on altering the dosage or length of radiotherapy treatments to try to reduce the number of hospital visits, thereby reducing the risk of exposing patients to SARS-CoV-2.

“The aim of these guidelines is very much to reduce the risk to patients,” Dr. Banfill said. “These patients are often at higher risk of serious COVID-19, both as a result of their cancer and also as a result of many of the coexisting medical conditions that they have, such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease],” she explained.

The COVID-RT Lung study was essentially born out of these guidelines. The goals of the study were to see what changes to radiotherapy practice occurred as a result of the guidelines and to assess how the changes have affected patient outcomes.
 

Changes to diagnosis and treatment

COVID-RT Lung is an ongoing, prospective study of patients with biopsy- or imaging-proven stage I–III lung cancer who were referred for, or treated with, radical radiotherapy at one of 26 oncology centers in the United Kingdom between April and October 2020.

Records on 1,117 patients were available for the initial analysis. The patients’ median age was 72 years (range, 38-93 years), and half were women.

The records showed changes to diagnostic investigations in 14% of patients (n = 160). Changes included not obtaining histology (4.6%, n = 51), not conducting nodal sampling (3.1%, n = 35), not performing pulmonary function tests (1.8%, n = 20), not conducting brain imaging (2.9%, n = 32), not performing PET/CT scans or having out-of-date scans (4.2%, n = 47), and delays in diagnosis (0.6%, n = 7).

Changes to treatment – deviations from standard care – occurred in 37% of patients (n = 415). This included 19% of patients (n = 210) having changes to radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule, 8% (n = 86) undergoing radiotherapy instead of surgery, and 13% (n = 143) having their chemotherapy omitted or reduced.

The median number of radiotherapy fractions was 15 for patients who had their radiotherapy adjusted and 20 for those who had no treatment amendments.

“Those who had their treatment changed were more likely to have hypofractionated or ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy,” Dr. Banfill said.

This was particularly true for patients with early-stage disease, she noted, where there was an increase in the percentage of patients getting more than 15 Gy per fraction. Even in stage III disease, there was an increased use of 3–5 Gy per fraction, although “virtually nobody” who had a change in treatment received less than 2 Gy per fraction, Dr. Banfill said.

“The changes are in line with what was reported in international recommendations,” observed Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium, who discussed the findings at the meeting.
 

Few patients had COVID-19

“It was striking to me to see that so few patients developed COVID-19 prior to radiotherapy or during radiotherapy,” Dr. Lievens noted. “This is actually something that we’ve also experienced in our setting.”

Indeed, just 15 patients (1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 10 of whom were diagnosed before receiving radiotherapy.

Dr. Banfill observed that the COVID-19 diagnosis had been “a reasonable time” before the patients started radiotherapy, and some had been diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of having a chest x-ray for suspected COVID-19.

Of the four patients who were diagnosed during treatment, two had their radiotherapy interrupted as a result.

The low COVID-19 rate is perhaps a result of the protective measures recommended in the United Kingdom, such as advising patients to shield from others, Dr. Banfill said.
 

Are changes to practice likely to hold?

“Part of the reason we actually stopped the data collection in October was that people were starting to go, ‘Well, is this actually a change?’ because they’d been doing it for 6 months,” Dr. Banfill observed during the discussion session.

“It was becoming almost normal for some of these hypofractionated changes. I think there is potential for these to become more embedded going forward,” she said. Data on how these changes might affect patients in the long term is going to be the focus of a future analysis.

“There is ongoing data collection on recurrence and survival and toxicity, which will hopefully provide more information on the outcomes of this patient group,” Dr. Banfill said.

The COVID-RT Lung project is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Banfill and Dr. Lievens reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An increase in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for lung cancer has been one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to initial data from the COVID-RT Lung study.

The U.K.-based study showed that patients with stage I-III lung cancer who were set to undergo radiotherapy with curative intent were more likely to receive fewer fractions at higher doses when treated between April and October 2020. During that period, 19% of patients had their radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule changed to deviate from standard care.

In addition, 8% of patients who were set to undergo surgery ultimately received radiotherapy instead, presumably to ease pressures on already struggling intensive care services, said Kathryn Banfill, MBChB, of Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England.

Dr. Banfill presented results from the COVID-RT Lung study at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 203MO).


 

New guidelines prompt study

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, European and joint European and North American guidelines were issued to try to ensure that lung cancer patients would continue to receive the best possible treatment under the circumstances. This included guidance on how and when to use treatments such as radiotherapy.

One U.K. guideline included recommendations on the use of hypofractionation in the COVID-19 era. The recommendations focused on altering the dosage or length of radiotherapy treatments to try to reduce the number of hospital visits, thereby reducing the risk of exposing patients to SARS-CoV-2.

“The aim of these guidelines is very much to reduce the risk to patients,” Dr. Banfill said. “These patients are often at higher risk of serious COVID-19, both as a result of their cancer and also as a result of many of the coexisting medical conditions that they have, such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease],” she explained.

The COVID-RT Lung study was essentially born out of these guidelines. The goals of the study were to see what changes to radiotherapy practice occurred as a result of the guidelines and to assess how the changes have affected patient outcomes.
 

Changes to diagnosis and treatment

COVID-RT Lung is an ongoing, prospective study of patients with biopsy- or imaging-proven stage I–III lung cancer who were referred for, or treated with, radical radiotherapy at one of 26 oncology centers in the United Kingdom between April and October 2020.

Records on 1,117 patients were available for the initial analysis. The patients’ median age was 72 years (range, 38-93 years), and half were women.

The records showed changes to diagnostic investigations in 14% of patients (n = 160). Changes included not obtaining histology (4.6%, n = 51), not conducting nodal sampling (3.1%, n = 35), not performing pulmonary function tests (1.8%, n = 20), not conducting brain imaging (2.9%, n = 32), not performing PET/CT scans or having out-of-date scans (4.2%, n = 47), and delays in diagnosis (0.6%, n = 7).

Changes to treatment – deviations from standard care – occurred in 37% of patients (n = 415). This included 19% of patients (n = 210) having changes to radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule, 8% (n = 86) undergoing radiotherapy instead of surgery, and 13% (n = 143) having their chemotherapy omitted or reduced.

The median number of radiotherapy fractions was 15 for patients who had their radiotherapy adjusted and 20 for those who had no treatment amendments.

“Those who had their treatment changed were more likely to have hypofractionated or ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy,” Dr. Banfill said.

This was particularly true for patients with early-stage disease, she noted, where there was an increase in the percentage of patients getting more than 15 Gy per fraction. Even in stage III disease, there was an increased use of 3–5 Gy per fraction, although “virtually nobody” who had a change in treatment received less than 2 Gy per fraction, Dr. Banfill said.

“The changes are in line with what was reported in international recommendations,” observed Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium, who discussed the findings at the meeting.
 

Few patients had COVID-19

“It was striking to me to see that so few patients developed COVID-19 prior to radiotherapy or during radiotherapy,” Dr. Lievens noted. “This is actually something that we’ve also experienced in our setting.”

Indeed, just 15 patients (1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 10 of whom were diagnosed before receiving radiotherapy.

Dr. Banfill observed that the COVID-19 diagnosis had been “a reasonable time” before the patients started radiotherapy, and some had been diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of having a chest x-ray for suspected COVID-19.

Of the four patients who were diagnosed during treatment, two had their radiotherapy interrupted as a result.

The low COVID-19 rate is perhaps a result of the protective measures recommended in the United Kingdom, such as advising patients to shield from others, Dr. Banfill said.
 

Are changes to practice likely to hold?

“Part of the reason we actually stopped the data collection in October was that people were starting to go, ‘Well, is this actually a change?’ because they’d been doing it for 6 months,” Dr. Banfill observed during the discussion session.

“It was becoming almost normal for some of these hypofractionated changes. I think there is potential for these to become more embedded going forward,” she said. Data on how these changes might affect patients in the long term is going to be the focus of a future analysis.

“There is ongoing data collection on recurrence and survival and toxicity, which will hopefully provide more information on the outcomes of this patient group,” Dr. Banfill said.

The COVID-RT Lung project is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Banfill and Dr. Lievens reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An increase in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for lung cancer has been one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to initial data from the COVID-RT Lung study.

The U.K.-based study showed that patients with stage I-III lung cancer who were set to undergo radiotherapy with curative intent were more likely to receive fewer fractions at higher doses when treated between April and October 2020. During that period, 19% of patients had their radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule changed to deviate from standard care.

In addition, 8% of patients who were set to undergo surgery ultimately received radiotherapy instead, presumably to ease pressures on already struggling intensive care services, said Kathryn Banfill, MBChB, of Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England.

Dr. Banfill presented results from the COVID-RT Lung study at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 203MO).


 

New guidelines prompt study

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, European and joint European and North American guidelines were issued to try to ensure that lung cancer patients would continue to receive the best possible treatment under the circumstances. This included guidance on how and when to use treatments such as radiotherapy.

One U.K. guideline included recommendations on the use of hypofractionation in the COVID-19 era. The recommendations focused on altering the dosage or length of radiotherapy treatments to try to reduce the number of hospital visits, thereby reducing the risk of exposing patients to SARS-CoV-2.

“The aim of these guidelines is very much to reduce the risk to patients,” Dr. Banfill said. “These patients are often at higher risk of serious COVID-19, both as a result of their cancer and also as a result of many of the coexisting medical conditions that they have, such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease],” she explained.

The COVID-RT Lung study was essentially born out of these guidelines. The goals of the study were to see what changes to radiotherapy practice occurred as a result of the guidelines and to assess how the changes have affected patient outcomes.
 

Changes to diagnosis and treatment

COVID-RT Lung is an ongoing, prospective study of patients with biopsy- or imaging-proven stage I–III lung cancer who were referred for, or treated with, radical radiotherapy at one of 26 oncology centers in the United Kingdom between April and October 2020.

Records on 1,117 patients were available for the initial analysis. The patients’ median age was 72 years (range, 38-93 years), and half were women.

The records showed changes to diagnostic investigations in 14% of patients (n = 160). Changes included not obtaining histology (4.6%, n = 51), not conducting nodal sampling (3.1%, n = 35), not performing pulmonary function tests (1.8%, n = 20), not conducting brain imaging (2.9%, n = 32), not performing PET/CT scans or having out-of-date scans (4.2%, n = 47), and delays in diagnosis (0.6%, n = 7).

Changes to treatment – deviations from standard care – occurred in 37% of patients (n = 415). This included 19% of patients (n = 210) having changes to radiotherapy dose or fractionation schedule, 8% (n = 86) undergoing radiotherapy instead of surgery, and 13% (n = 143) having their chemotherapy omitted or reduced.

The median number of radiotherapy fractions was 15 for patients who had their radiotherapy adjusted and 20 for those who had no treatment amendments.

“Those who had their treatment changed were more likely to have hypofractionated or ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy,” Dr. Banfill said.

This was particularly true for patients with early-stage disease, she noted, where there was an increase in the percentage of patients getting more than 15 Gy per fraction. Even in stage III disease, there was an increased use of 3–5 Gy per fraction, although “virtually nobody” who had a change in treatment received less than 2 Gy per fraction, Dr. Banfill said.

“The changes are in line with what was reported in international recommendations,” observed Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium, who discussed the findings at the meeting.
 

Few patients had COVID-19

“It was striking to me to see that so few patients developed COVID-19 prior to radiotherapy or during radiotherapy,” Dr. Lievens noted. “This is actually something that we’ve also experienced in our setting.”

Indeed, just 15 patients (1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 10 of whom were diagnosed before receiving radiotherapy.

Dr. Banfill observed that the COVID-19 diagnosis had been “a reasonable time” before the patients started radiotherapy, and some had been diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of having a chest x-ray for suspected COVID-19.

Of the four patients who were diagnosed during treatment, two had their radiotherapy interrupted as a result.

The low COVID-19 rate is perhaps a result of the protective measures recommended in the United Kingdom, such as advising patients to shield from others, Dr. Banfill said.
 

Are changes to practice likely to hold?

“Part of the reason we actually stopped the data collection in October was that people were starting to go, ‘Well, is this actually a change?’ because they’d been doing it for 6 months,” Dr. Banfill observed during the discussion session.

“It was becoming almost normal for some of these hypofractionated changes. I think there is potential for these to become more embedded going forward,” she said. Data on how these changes might affect patients in the long term is going to be the focus of a future analysis.

“There is ongoing data collection on recurrence and survival and toxicity, which will hopefully provide more information on the outcomes of this patient group,” Dr. Banfill said.

The COVID-RT Lung project is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Banfill and Dr. Lievens reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

The KRAS inhibitor adagrasib produced a high disease control rate in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from the KRYSTAL-1 study.

An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.

“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).

Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.

“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.

Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.

“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
 

Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target

Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.

Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.

“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
 

KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety

KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.

Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.

The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).

Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
 

Greater effect seen with co-mutation

KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.

A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.

Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.

A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.

Data could support drug combination

The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.

“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”

The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.

The KRAS inhibitor adagrasib produced a high disease control rate in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from the KRYSTAL-1 study.

An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.

“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).

Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.

“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.

Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.

“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
 

Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target

Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.

Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.

“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
 

KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety

KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.

Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.

The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).

Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
 

Greater effect seen with co-mutation

KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.

A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.

Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.

A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.

Data could support drug combination

The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.

“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”

The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.

The KRAS inhibitor adagrasib produced a high disease control rate in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to data from the KRYSTAL-1 study.

An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.

“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).

Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.

“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.

Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.

“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
 

Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target

Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.

Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.

“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
 

KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety

KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.

Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.

The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).

Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
 

Greater effect seen with co-mutation

KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.

A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.

Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.

A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.

Data could support drug combination

The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.

“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”

The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.

Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.

“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.

“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.

There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).

Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
 

AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue

What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.

“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.

The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.

“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.

In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.

“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.

“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.

The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.

Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.

Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings

Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.

“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.

There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.

Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.

“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.

Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.

“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.

T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.

“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.

Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.

Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.

Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.

“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.

“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.

There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).

Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
 

AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue

What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.

“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.

The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.

“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.

In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.

“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.

“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.

The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.

Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.

Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings

Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.

“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.

There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.

Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.

“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.

Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.

“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.

T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.

“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.

Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.

Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.

Macrophages are among the most important inflammatory cells in the synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, according to research discussed at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

Work conducted as part of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (RA/SLE) Network suggests that not only do macrophages play an inflammatory role, but there may also be a subset of macrophages that have a predominantly anti-inflammatory effect.

“These are cells that are really activated and can produce a lot of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF [tumor necrosis factor],” said Jennifer Howitt Anolik, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and cochair of the AMP RA/SLE Network.

“In addition to inflammatory mediators there’s an anti-inflammatory population which may control the disease,” she added, at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Health and Arthritis.

There are up to 15 different populations of macrophages found so far as part of a project by Fan Zhang of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Dr. Anolik revealed. Of these, three have been shown to be proinflammatory and five have been shown to be anti-inflammatory – including one of particular interest that expresses MERTK, which recent work suggests are lacking in people with RA, compared with a control population of people with osteoarthritis (OA).

Clearly, Dr. Anolik said, there is “lots more work to do to understand how those anti-inflammatory monocytes might work, understand the relationship to treatment response and treatment failure, and how to target them.”
 

AMP RA/SLE Network: Examining RA synovial tissue

What’s unique about the AMP’s work is that it is involving single-cell analytics in which individual cells derived from patients with RA are subjected to an array of RNA sequencing and molecular classification methods.

“If we’re able to define the cells that are driving the disease at the tissue level, this may lead to better therapeutics and more of like a precision medicine approach,” Dr. Anolik said. An important feature of the AMP’s work is that it is based on the use of existing and thus “very informative cohorts” for whom we know a lot about disease characteristics, she said.

The AMP RA/SLE Network officially formed in 2014 and is a public–private partnership between the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, several biopharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit organizations. The task was to try to accelerate discoveries that would lead to better patient care.

“The initial phase [Research Phase 0], was really about developing the procedures in a standardized way,” Dr. Anolik said. “Because we’re looking at patient joint tissue samples, we needed to access that tissue and that required developing needle biopsy approaches.” Synovial biopsy had been pioneered in the United Kingdom and become fairly standard to perform, she added, but this was not an approach that was routinely being used in the United States at the time.

In the next step, Research Phase I, researchers looked at the expression profiles of RA synovial cells in a small group of patients. In all, around 5,000 cells from the joints of up to 20 patients with RA were analyzed. What was apparent was that while there were fibroblasts, monocytes, T cells, and B cells all present to some degree, there was substantial heterogeneity among those subtypes.

“Within all the different immune cells and stromal cells, we found 18 different populations overall,” Dr. Anolik said, giving some of the top-level findings. Both single-cell RNA sequencing and mass cytometry revealed that there were greatly (16-fold) increased numbers of a population of sublining fibroblasts and a 3.3-fold increase in interleukin-1-beta-expressing proinflammatory monocytes. There was a threefold increase in a subset of B cells expressing CD11/T-bet, and a 2.4-fold increase in certain peripheral T cells.

“Interestingly, we were able to pinpoint which cells are making which kinds of inflammatory mediators like inflammatory cytokines,” Dr. Anolik said. Notably, one of the fibroblast populations and one of the B cells were prominent producers of interleukin-6.

The AMP RA/SLE Network is now in Research Phase II, looking at much greater numbers of cells (>5,000) in more than 100 samples from individual patients. It’s a “very comprehensive, big data look at RA,” according to Dr. Anolik.

Research Phase II will also see more rigorous groups of patients being examined, including those who have not had any or much exposure to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and those who have inadequately responded to methotrexate or anti-TNF drugs.

Recent AMP RA/SLE Network findings

Recent work by the AMP RA/SLE Network has shown that stromal fibroblasts can become highly inflammatory in RA.

“What’s becoming clear is that these are more than just lining of the joint or structure of the joint, they actually play an active role in the disease,” Dr. Anolik said.

There is a lot of diversity in these fibroblasts but they broadly fall into lining or sublining subtypes. Those that are proinflammatory tend to express markers such as HLA-DR and CD90, and one that is of notable interest is a subgroup of sublining fibroblasts that express Notch3. Indeed, it has been shown that the higher the number of Notch3-expressing fibroblasts there are in the joint, the greater the level of inflammation. Also, mice lacking Notch3 seem to get less arthritis than those with Notch3. This makes Notch3 an interesting potential target that no one had thought of before.

Dr. Anolik noted that some evolving concepts about T cells include evidence showing CD8-postive T cells are more abundant in the joint tissue than previously thought and, together with natural killer (NK) cells, are an important producer of interferon-gamma.

“There are some very interesting CD4 T-cell populations, including an expansion of T peripheral helper cells that may be very important in driving B-cell activation,” Dr. Anolik said. There are also many other clusters of T cells and NK cells that have unknown roles.

Over the past years, Dr. Anolik’s research had focused on the role B cells play in autoimmune disease, and one of the cells of interest are known as age-related B cells, or ABCs. High percentages of ABCs have been found in the RA synovium, and these seem to be related to disease activity as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). These cells also seem to cluster with some of the T helper cell populations found in the joint. Another interesting target could be B cells expressing a transcription factor known as T-bet. Work in mice suggests that the absence of T-bet B cells could be associated with reduced levels of arthritis.

“One of the things that we’re really interested in about B cells, in addition to their production of autoantibodies, is that they may be important for some of the structural damage that occurs with rheumatoid arthritis,” she said.

T-bet B cells seem to have an effect on both osteoclasts and osteoblasts – activating one while inhibiting the other to have a negative effect on bone overall, she explained. However, knocking out T-bet seems to resolve this, again suggesting that T-bet B cells may be another interesting subpopulation to target.

“Overall, the AMP has been a really interesting approach. This is a massive data set. We are putting the data together now to publish, and it will be available in the public domain,” Dr. Anolik said.

Members of the AMP RA/SLE Network include: AbbVie, the Arthritis Foundation, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, the Foundation for the NIH, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.

Dr. Anolik had no disclosures.

Adding everolimus to adjuvant hormone therapy for early ER+, HER2- breast cancer does not offer any benefit over hormone therapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 UNIRAD study.

At a median follow-up of almost 3 years, rates of disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were similar in the everolimus and hormone therapy-alone arms.

These findings were presented at the inaugural ESMO Virtual Plenary and published in Annals of Oncology.

The UNIRAD results contrast results from prior studies of everolimus in the advanced breast cancer setting. In the BOLERO-2 and BOLERO-4 studies, the mTOR inhibitor provided a progression-free survival benefit when added to hormone therapy.

“There clearly is rationale for targeted therapy in early ER+, HER2- breast cancer,” said Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Center in Singapore, who chaired the ESMO Virtual Plenary in which the UNIRAD findings were presented.

“Patients with high-risk luminal breast cancer clearly have an unmet need. We probably still underestimate the risk of early and late recurrences, and chemotherapy is not necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dent said.

She observed that a lot has been learned about the mTOR pathway, including how complicated it is and its role in endocrine resistance. Since mTOR inhibition was standard care in the metastatic setting, “it really is appropriate now to test in early breast cancer,” she added.

Study details

The aim of the UNIRAD study was to compare the efficacy and safety of everolimus plus standard adjuvant hormone therapy to hormone therapy alone in women with ER+, HER2- early breast cancer who had a high risk of recurrence. High risk was defined as having more than four positive nodes, having one or more positive nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy, or having one or more positive nodes and an EPclin score of 3.3 or higher.

The trial enrolled 1,278 patients. At baseline, their median age was 54 years (range, 48-63), 65.8% were postmenopausal, and 52.7% had four or more positive nodes.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 years of everolimus plus hormone therapy or placebo plus hormone therapy. The type of hormone therapy was investigor’s choice.

Investigator Thomas Bachelot, MD, PhD, of Centre Leon Berard in Lyon, France, noted that the study started in 2013 and underwent several protocol amendments, first for accrual problems and then because of toxicity. This led to dropping the starting dose of everolimus from 10 mg to 5 mg.

“Acceptability was a concern; 50% of our patients stopped everolimus before study completion for toxicity or personal decision,” Dr. Bachelot acknowledged.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more frequent in patients taking everolimus (29.9%) than placebo (15.9%) in combination with hormone therapy. The rates of serious adverse events were a respective 11.8% and 9.3%.

Mucositis was one of the main adverse events, occurring in more than half of all patients treated with everolimus (33.8% grade 1, 25.4% grade 2, and 7.4% grade 3/4). The success of managing this side effect with a dexamethasone mouthwash was not known at the time of the UNIRAD trial design.

The study also showed no benefit of everolimus over placebo for the following efficacy outcomes:

• Disease-free survival – 88% and 89%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.32; P = .78)
• Distant metastasis-free survival – 91% and 90%, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62-1.25)
• Overall survival – both 96% (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.92).

With the exception of patients who had received tamoxifen rather than an aromatase inhibitor, a preplanned subgroup analysis suggested there was no population of patients who benefited from the addition of everolimus.
 

Problems interpreting data

There are several problems in interpreting the UNIRAD data, observed study discussant Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital & Barts Cancer Institute in London.

For one, “whether we like it or not,” the trial was underpowered, he said. This was because the trial had been halted early for futility at the first interim analysis when about two-thirds of the intended study cohort had been accrued.

In addition, Dr. Schmid said, this is clearly not a trial that included patients with primary endocrine resistance. In all, 43% of patients had received less than 1 year of endocrine treatment, 42% had received 2-3 years, and 15% had received more than 3 years of endocrine treatment.

Dr. Schmid said that the starting dose of everolimus had to be lowered because of toxicity or poor acceptance. “As a result, two-thirds of patients received a 5-mg dose, and we don’t know whether that had an impact on efficacy,” he said.

Furthermore, the median time on treatment was less than half of what was initially planned, and 53% of patients had to stop everolimus before the end of the study.

Dr. Schmid noted that this discontinuation rate is higher than that seen in trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors added to endocrine treatment. Dropout rates were 19% in the negative Penelope-B trial with palbociclib, 42% in the negative PALLAS trial with palbociclib, and 27% in the positive monarchE trial with abemaciclib.

With such a high discontinuation rate in the UNIRAD trial, “we’re not sure whether we can ultimately evaluate really whether this trial did work,” Dr. Schmid said.

“Could the results change over time?” he asked. “I personally think it is unlikely, as the trial clearly has already an adequate follow-up for what it was supposed to show.”

Looking at whether the trial’s hypothesis is still valid, he added: “I think that is unclear to all of us, and we need to work out whether these compounds are cytostatic in nature, or cytotoxic. And that is something we need to learn over time.”

Commending the study overall, Dr. Schmid observed: “I think it was an excellent trial design based on what we knew at that time,” and the design “was changed in a pragmatic way because of recruitment challenges.”

Something for the future would be to select patients for such trials based on the tumor biology rather than risk status, Dr. Schmid suggested. “That is something we may have to take into consideration with our increasing knowledge around primary and secondary resistance and what treatments we want to introduce to target-resistant clones,” he said.

The UNIRAD study was sponsored by UNICANCER, with funding and support from the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, Myriad Genetics (which provided Endopredict tests), and Novartis (which provided everolimus and placebo). Dr. Bachelot, Dr. Schmid, and Dr. Dent disclosed relationships with Novartis and several other pharmaceutical companies.

Adding everolimus to adjuvant hormone therapy for early ER+, HER2- breast cancer does not offer any benefit over hormone therapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 UNIRAD study.

At a median follow-up of almost 3 years, rates of disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were similar in the everolimus and hormone therapy-alone arms.

These findings were presented at the inaugural ESMO Virtual Plenary and published in Annals of Oncology.

The UNIRAD results contrast results from prior studies of everolimus in the advanced breast cancer setting. In the BOLERO-2 and BOLERO-4 studies, the mTOR inhibitor provided a progression-free survival benefit when added to hormone therapy.

“There clearly is rationale for targeted therapy in early ER+, HER2- breast cancer,” said Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Center in Singapore, who chaired the ESMO Virtual Plenary in which the UNIRAD findings were presented.

“Patients with high-risk luminal breast cancer clearly have an unmet need. We probably still underestimate the risk of early and late recurrences, and chemotherapy is not necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dent said.

She observed that a lot has been learned about the mTOR pathway, including how complicated it is and its role in endocrine resistance. Since mTOR inhibition was standard care in the metastatic setting, “it really is appropriate now to test in early breast cancer,” she added.

Study details

The aim of the UNIRAD study was to compare the efficacy and safety of everolimus plus standard adjuvant hormone therapy to hormone therapy alone in women with ER+, HER2- early breast cancer who had a high risk of recurrence. High risk was defined as having more than four positive nodes, having one or more positive nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy, or having one or more positive nodes and an EPclin score of 3.3 or higher.

The trial enrolled 1,278 patients. At baseline, their median age was 54 years (range, 48-63), 65.8% were postmenopausal, and 52.7% had four or more positive nodes.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 years of everolimus plus hormone therapy or placebo plus hormone therapy. The type of hormone therapy was investigor’s choice.

Investigator Thomas Bachelot, MD, PhD, of Centre Leon Berard in Lyon, France, noted that the study started in 2013 and underwent several protocol amendments, first for accrual problems and then because of toxicity. This led to dropping the starting dose of everolimus from 10 mg to 5 mg.

“Acceptability was a concern; 50% of our patients stopped everolimus before study completion for toxicity or personal decision,” Dr. Bachelot acknowledged.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more frequent in patients taking everolimus (29.9%) than placebo (15.9%) in combination with hormone therapy. The rates of serious adverse events were a respective 11.8% and 9.3%.

Mucositis was one of the main adverse events, occurring in more than half of all patients treated with everolimus (33.8% grade 1, 25.4% grade 2, and 7.4% grade 3/4). The success of managing this side effect with a dexamethasone mouthwash was not known at the time of the UNIRAD trial design.

The study also showed no benefit of everolimus over placebo for the following efficacy outcomes:

• Disease-free survival – 88% and 89%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.32; P = .78)
• Distant metastasis-free survival – 91% and 90%, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62-1.25)
• Overall survival – both 96% (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.92).

With the exception of patients who had received tamoxifen rather than an aromatase inhibitor, a preplanned subgroup analysis suggested there was no population of patients who benefited from the addition of everolimus.
 

Problems interpreting data

There are several problems in interpreting the UNIRAD data, observed study discussant Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital & Barts Cancer Institute in London.

For one, “whether we like it or not,” the trial was underpowered, he said. This was because the trial had been halted early for futility at the first interim analysis when about two-thirds of the intended study cohort had been accrued.

In addition, Dr. Schmid said, this is clearly not a trial that included patients with primary endocrine resistance. In all, 43% of patients had received less than 1 year of endocrine treatment, 42% had received 2-3 years, and 15% had received more than 3 years of endocrine treatment.

Dr. Schmid said that the starting dose of everolimus had to be lowered because of toxicity or poor acceptance. “As a result, two-thirds of patients received a 5-mg dose, and we don’t know whether that had an impact on efficacy,” he said.

Furthermore, the median time on treatment was less than half of what was initially planned, and 53% of patients had to stop everolimus before the end of the study.

Dr. Schmid noted that this discontinuation rate is higher than that seen in trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors added to endocrine treatment. Dropout rates were 19% in the negative Penelope-B trial with palbociclib, 42% in the negative PALLAS trial with palbociclib, and 27% in the positive monarchE trial with abemaciclib.

With such a high discontinuation rate in the UNIRAD trial, “we’re not sure whether we can ultimately evaluate really whether this trial did work,” Dr. Schmid said.

“Could the results change over time?” he asked. “I personally think it is unlikely, as the trial clearly has already an adequate follow-up for what it was supposed to show.”

Looking at whether the trial’s hypothesis is still valid, he added: “I think that is unclear to all of us, and we need to work out whether these compounds are cytostatic in nature, or cytotoxic. And that is something we need to learn over time.”

Commending the study overall, Dr. Schmid observed: “I think it was an excellent trial design based on what we knew at that time,” and the design “was changed in a pragmatic way because of recruitment challenges.”

Something for the future would be to select patients for such trials based on the tumor biology rather than risk status, Dr. Schmid suggested. “That is something we may have to take into consideration with our increasing knowledge around primary and secondary resistance and what treatments we want to introduce to target-resistant clones,” he said.

The UNIRAD study was sponsored by UNICANCER, with funding and support from the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, Myriad Genetics (which provided Endopredict tests), and Novartis (which provided everolimus and placebo). Dr. Bachelot, Dr. Schmid, and Dr. Dent disclosed relationships with Novartis and several other pharmaceutical companies.

Adding everolimus to adjuvant hormone therapy for early ER+, HER2- breast cancer does not offer any benefit over hormone therapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 UNIRAD study.

At a median follow-up of almost 3 years, rates of disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were similar in the everolimus and hormone therapy-alone arms.

These findings were presented at the inaugural ESMO Virtual Plenary and published in Annals of Oncology.

The UNIRAD results contrast results from prior studies of everolimus in the advanced breast cancer setting. In the BOLERO-2 and BOLERO-4 studies, the mTOR inhibitor provided a progression-free survival benefit when added to hormone therapy.

“There clearly is rationale for targeted therapy in early ER+, HER2- breast cancer,” said Rebecca Dent, MD, of the National Cancer Center in Singapore, who chaired the ESMO Virtual Plenary in which the UNIRAD findings were presented.

“Patients with high-risk luminal breast cancer clearly have an unmet need. We probably still underestimate the risk of early and late recurrences, and chemotherapy is not necessarily the answer,” Dr. Dent said.

She observed that a lot has been learned about the mTOR pathway, including how complicated it is and its role in endocrine resistance. Since mTOR inhibition was standard care in the metastatic setting, “it really is appropriate now to test in early breast cancer,” she added.

Study details

The aim of the UNIRAD study was to compare the efficacy and safety of everolimus plus standard adjuvant hormone therapy to hormone therapy alone in women with ER+, HER2- early breast cancer who had a high risk of recurrence. High risk was defined as having more than four positive nodes, having one or more positive nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy, or having one or more positive nodes and an EPclin score of 3.3 or higher.

The trial enrolled 1,278 patients. At baseline, their median age was 54 years (range, 48-63), 65.8% were postmenopausal, and 52.7% had four or more positive nodes.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 years of everolimus plus hormone therapy or placebo plus hormone therapy. The type of hormone therapy was investigor’s choice.

Investigator Thomas Bachelot, MD, PhD, of Centre Leon Berard in Lyon, France, noted that the study started in 2013 and underwent several protocol amendments, first for accrual problems and then because of toxicity. This led to dropping the starting dose of everolimus from 10 mg to 5 mg.

“Acceptability was a concern; 50% of our patients stopped everolimus before study completion for toxicity or personal decision,” Dr. Bachelot acknowledged.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more frequent in patients taking everolimus (29.9%) than placebo (15.9%) in combination with hormone therapy. The rates of serious adverse events were a respective 11.8% and 9.3%.

Mucositis was one of the main adverse events, occurring in more than half of all patients treated with everolimus (33.8% grade 1, 25.4% grade 2, and 7.4% grade 3/4). The success of managing this side effect with a dexamethasone mouthwash was not known at the time of the UNIRAD trial design.

The study also showed no benefit of everolimus over placebo for the following efficacy outcomes:

• Disease-free survival – 88% and 89%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.32; P = .78)
• Distant metastasis-free survival – 91% and 90%, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62-1.25)
• Overall survival – both 96% (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.92).

With the exception of patients who had received tamoxifen rather than an aromatase inhibitor, a preplanned subgroup analysis suggested there was no population of patients who benefited from the addition of everolimus.
 

Problems interpreting data

There are several problems in interpreting the UNIRAD data, observed study discussant Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital & Barts Cancer Institute in London.

For one, “whether we like it or not,” the trial was underpowered, he said. This was because the trial had been halted early for futility at the first interim analysis when about two-thirds of the intended study cohort had been accrued.

In addition, Dr. Schmid said, this is clearly not a trial that included patients with primary endocrine resistance. In all, 43% of patients had received less than 1 year of endocrine treatment, 42% had received 2-3 years, and 15% had received more than 3 years of endocrine treatment.

Dr. Schmid said that the starting dose of everolimus had to be lowered because of toxicity or poor acceptance. “As a result, two-thirds of patients received a 5-mg dose, and we don’t know whether that had an impact on efficacy,” he said.

Furthermore, the median time on treatment was less than half of what was initially planned, and 53% of patients had to stop everolimus before the end of the study.

Dr. Schmid noted that this discontinuation rate is higher than that seen in trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors added to endocrine treatment. Dropout rates were 19% in the negative Penelope-B trial with palbociclib, 42% in the negative PALLAS trial with palbociclib, and 27% in the positive monarchE trial with abemaciclib.

With such a high discontinuation rate in the UNIRAD trial, “we’re not sure whether we can ultimately evaluate really whether this trial did work,” Dr. Schmid said.

“Could the results change over time?” he asked. “I personally think it is unlikely, as the trial clearly has already an adequate follow-up for what it was supposed to show.”

Looking at whether the trial’s hypothesis is still valid, he added: “I think that is unclear to all of us, and we need to work out whether these compounds are cytostatic in nature, or cytotoxic. And that is something we need to learn over time.”

Commending the study overall, Dr. Schmid observed: “I think it was an excellent trial design based on what we knew at that time,” and the design “was changed in a pragmatic way because of recruitment challenges.”

Something for the future would be to select patients for such trials based on the tumor biology rather than risk status, Dr. Schmid suggested. “That is something we may have to take into consideration with our increasing knowledge around primary and secondary resistance and what treatments we want to introduce to target-resistant clones,” he said.

The UNIRAD study was sponsored by UNICANCER, with funding and support from the French Ministry of Health, Cancer Research UK, Myriad Genetics (which provided Endopredict tests), and Novartis (which provided everolimus and placebo). Dr. Bachelot, Dr. Schmid, and Dr. Dent disclosed relationships with Novartis and several other pharmaceutical companies.