Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

A device that stimulates the median nerve and a D1 receptor antagonist are among the promising new treatment approaches for patients with Tourette syndrome (TS), according to an overview of new therapies presented at the XXVI World Congress of Neurology.

One recent study by University of Nottingham researchers showed a wrist-worn stimulating device significantly reduces the frequency and severity of tics – repetitive movements or vocalizations that can occur several times a day.

“Wearable nerve stimulation holds great promise because it will be good across the age spectrum; adults can wear it to work, and children can go to school with it to help them concentrate on their schoolwork, and then they take it off at night,” Eileen Joyce, PhD, MB BChir, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Institute of Neurology, University College London, told this news organization.

Dr. Joyce, who was not part of the study, discussed this and other new advances in tic therapy at the meeting.

About 24% of children will suffer from tics at some point. The prevalence of Tourette syndrome among males is about four times that of females, Dr. Joyce told delegates. She added the typical age of onset is about 7 years with peak severity at about 12 years.

Predictors of tics persisting into adulthood include comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive disorder, and autism spectrum disorder, said Dr. Joyce, who also discussed the “highly heritable” nature of the syndrome and the numerous related genes identified to date.
 

Current and emerging treatments

Current treatments include psychological therapy, Botox for focal tics, and medications such as antipsychotics. Emerging therapies included deep brain stimulation and the new median nerve stimulation approach.

A study published  earlier this year included 135 patients with moderate to severe tic disorder who were randomly assigned to receive the investigational neuromodulation treatment, a sham treatment, or a wait-list treatment group.

The intervention involves rhythmic pulse trains of median nerve stimulation delivered via a device worn at the wrist. The device was programmed to deliver rhythmic (10 Hz) trains of low-intensity (1-19 mA) electrical stimulation to the median nerve at home once daily, 5 days a week for 4 weeks.

At 4 weeks, tic severity, as measured by the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTSS), was reduced by 7.1 points (35% reduction) in the active stimulation group compared to 2.13 points in the sham and 2.11 points in wait-list control groups.

The reduction for active stimulation was substantially larger, clinically meaningful (effect size, 0.5), and statistically significant (P = .02) compared to both the sham stimulation and wait-list control groups, which did not differ from one another.

Tic frequency (tics per minute or TPM) was reduced more in the active than sham stimulation groups (−15.6 TPM vs. −7.7 TPM; P < .03) and the reduction in tic frequency was clinically meaningful (>25% reduction; effect-size, 0.3).

When the active stimulator was turned off, the tics worsened, noted Dr. Joyce.

“The study showed that if you stimulate the median nerve at the wrist, you can train brain oscillations that are linked to the suppression of movement,” Dr. Joyce said. “So based on physiological knowledge, they have developed a median nerve stimulator to entrain cortical rhythms.”
 

Simple and exciting

The new device is “really exciting”, she added. “It’s not invasive and is quite simple to use and could help a lot of people with Tourette syndrome.”

Asked to comment, Alan Carson, MD, consultant neuropsychiatrist and honorary professor of neuropsychiatry, University of Edinburgh, who co-chaired the neuropsychiatry session featuring this presentation, called the device “promising.”

“Deep brain stimulation appears to be very effective but it’s a major procedure, so a simple wearable device seems highly desirable,” Dr. Carson said.

Dr. Joyce also discussed a study on the efficacy of cannabis (nabiximols; Sativex) as an intervention for tic management in males, those with severe tics, and those with comorbid ADHD.

And a new oral medication, ecopipam, a highly selective D1 receptor antagonist, is also raising hopes, said Dr. Joyce, with results from a randomized controlled trial  showing the drug significantly improved tics and had few adverse effects.

Dr. Joyce and Dr. Carson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A device that stimulates the median nerve and a D1 receptor antagonist are among the promising new treatment approaches for patients with Tourette syndrome (TS), according to an overview of new therapies presented at the XXVI World Congress of Neurology.

One recent study by University of Nottingham researchers showed a wrist-worn stimulating device significantly reduces the frequency and severity of tics – repetitive movements or vocalizations that can occur several times a day.

“Wearable nerve stimulation holds great promise because it will be good across the age spectrum; adults can wear it to work, and children can go to school with it to help them concentrate on their schoolwork, and then they take it off at night,” Eileen Joyce, PhD, MB BChir, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Institute of Neurology, University College London, told this news organization.

Dr. Joyce, who was not part of the study, discussed this and other new advances in tic therapy at the meeting.

About 24% of children will suffer from tics at some point. The prevalence of Tourette syndrome among males is about four times that of females, Dr. Joyce told delegates. She added the typical age of onset is about 7 years with peak severity at about 12 years.

Predictors of tics persisting into adulthood include comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive disorder, and autism spectrum disorder, said Dr. Joyce, who also discussed the “highly heritable” nature of the syndrome and the numerous related genes identified to date.
 

Current and emerging treatments

Current treatments include psychological therapy, Botox for focal tics, and medications such as antipsychotics. Emerging therapies included deep brain stimulation and the new median nerve stimulation approach.

A study published  earlier this year included 135 patients with moderate to severe tic disorder who were randomly assigned to receive the investigational neuromodulation treatment, a sham treatment, or a wait-list treatment group.

The intervention involves rhythmic pulse trains of median nerve stimulation delivered via a device worn at the wrist. The device was programmed to deliver rhythmic (10 Hz) trains of low-intensity (1-19 mA) electrical stimulation to the median nerve at home once daily, 5 days a week for 4 weeks.

At 4 weeks, tic severity, as measured by the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTSS), was reduced by 7.1 points (35% reduction) in the active stimulation group compared to 2.13 points in the sham and 2.11 points in wait-list control groups.

The reduction for active stimulation was substantially larger, clinically meaningful (effect size, 0.5), and statistically significant (P = .02) compared to both the sham stimulation and wait-list control groups, which did not differ from one another.

Tic frequency (tics per minute or TPM) was reduced more in the active than sham stimulation groups (−15.6 TPM vs. −7.7 TPM; P < .03) and the reduction in tic frequency was clinically meaningful (>25% reduction; effect-size, 0.3).

When the active stimulator was turned off, the tics worsened, noted Dr. Joyce.

“The study showed that if you stimulate the median nerve at the wrist, you can train brain oscillations that are linked to the suppression of movement,” Dr. Joyce said. “So based on physiological knowledge, they have developed a median nerve stimulator to entrain cortical rhythms.”
 

Simple and exciting

The new device is “really exciting”, she added. “It’s not invasive and is quite simple to use and could help a lot of people with Tourette syndrome.”

Asked to comment, Alan Carson, MD, consultant neuropsychiatrist and honorary professor of neuropsychiatry, University of Edinburgh, who co-chaired the neuropsychiatry session featuring this presentation, called the device “promising.”

“Deep brain stimulation appears to be very effective but it’s a major procedure, so a simple wearable device seems highly desirable,” Dr. Carson said.

Dr. Joyce also discussed a study on the efficacy of cannabis (nabiximols; Sativex) as an intervention for tic management in males, those with severe tics, and those with comorbid ADHD.

And a new oral medication, ecopipam, a highly selective D1 receptor antagonist, is also raising hopes, said Dr. Joyce, with results from a randomized controlled trial  showing the drug significantly improved tics and had few adverse effects.

Dr. Joyce and Dr. Carson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A device that stimulates the median nerve and a D1 receptor antagonist are among the promising new treatment approaches for patients with Tourette syndrome (TS), according to an overview of new therapies presented at the XXVI World Congress of Neurology.

One recent study by University of Nottingham researchers showed a wrist-worn stimulating device significantly reduces the frequency and severity of tics – repetitive movements or vocalizations that can occur several times a day.

“Wearable nerve stimulation holds great promise because it will be good across the age spectrum; adults can wear it to work, and children can go to school with it to help them concentrate on their schoolwork, and then they take it off at night,” Eileen Joyce, PhD, MB BChir, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Institute of Neurology, University College London, told this news organization.

Dr. Joyce, who was not part of the study, discussed this and other new advances in tic therapy at the meeting.

About 24% of children will suffer from tics at some point. The prevalence of Tourette syndrome among males is about four times that of females, Dr. Joyce told delegates. She added the typical age of onset is about 7 years with peak severity at about 12 years.

Predictors of tics persisting into adulthood include comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive disorder, and autism spectrum disorder, said Dr. Joyce, who also discussed the “highly heritable” nature of the syndrome and the numerous related genes identified to date.
 

Current and emerging treatments

Current treatments include psychological therapy, Botox for focal tics, and medications such as antipsychotics. Emerging therapies included deep brain stimulation and the new median nerve stimulation approach.

A study published  earlier this year included 135 patients with moderate to severe tic disorder who were randomly assigned to receive the investigational neuromodulation treatment, a sham treatment, or a wait-list treatment group.

The intervention involves rhythmic pulse trains of median nerve stimulation delivered via a device worn at the wrist. The device was programmed to deliver rhythmic (10 Hz) trains of low-intensity (1-19 mA) electrical stimulation to the median nerve at home once daily, 5 days a week for 4 weeks.

At 4 weeks, tic severity, as measured by the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTSS), was reduced by 7.1 points (35% reduction) in the active stimulation group compared to 2.13 points in the sham and 2.11 points in wait-list control groups.

The reduction for active stimulation was substantially larger, clinically meaningful (effect size, 0.5), and statistically significant (P = .02) compared to both the sham stimulation and wait-list control groups, which did not differ from one another.

Tic frequency (tics per minute or TPM) was reduced more in the active than sham stimulation groups (−15.6 TPM vs. −7.7 TPM; P < .03) and the reduction in tic frequency was clinically meaningful (>25% reduction; effect-size, 0.3).

When the active stimulator was turned off, the tics worsened, noted Dr. Joyce.

“The study showed that if you stimulate the median nerve at the wrist, you can train brain oscillations that are linked to the suppression of movement,” Dr. Joyce said. “So based on physiological knowledge, they have developed a median nerve stimulator to entrain cortical rhythms.”
 

Simple and exciting

The new device is “really exciting”, she added. “It’s not invasive and is quite simple to use and could help a lot of people with Tourette syndrome.”

Asked to comment, Alan Carson, MD, consultant neuropsychiatrist and honorary professor of neuropsychiatry, University of Edinburgh, who co-chaired the neuropsychiatry session featuring this presentation, called the device “promising.”

“Deep brain stimulation appears to be very effective but it’s a major procedure, so a simple wearable device seems highly desirable,” Dr. Carson said.

Dr. Joyce also discussed a study on the efficacy of cannabis (nabiximols; Sativex) as an intervention for tic management in males, those with severe tics, and those with comorbid ADHD.

And a new oral medication, ecopipam, a highly selective D1 receptor antagonist, is also raising hopes, said Dr. Joyce, with results from a randomized controlled trial  showing the drug significantly improved tics and had few adverse effects.

Dr. Joyce and Dr. Carson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – In contrast to some previous research, investigators found no significant correlation between common biologic and oral small molecule treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

In addition, biologics such as infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, natalizumab, and ustekinumab not only did not increase risk, but they were also linked to a significantly lower risk of major cardiovascular and thromboembolic events.

Risk reduction with biologics ranged from 15% for venous thromboembolism to 34% for myocardial infarction.

“The decrease in MACE with biologics was significant – and a bit surprising – but it correlates with the theory that by decreasing inflammation, there is a decrease in MACE,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chief of the Digestive Disease Institute at Cleveland Clinic, and senior author of the study.

“Our thought was that we would not see an increase in MACE and it would be equivalent between patients with IBD treated with advanced therapies and patients not treated with advanced therapies,” he told this news organization.

The findings “are consistent with some of the emerging long-term extension data from IBD clinical trials,” Dr. Regueiro reported at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting. “And I’ll make an editorial comment for those that treat and practice in inflammatory bowel disease: I think these data continue to support, affirm, and hopefully comfort us.”
 

Therapies previously implicated in increased MACE risk

IBD itself is associated with increased MACE risk, likely because of chronic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, the researchers note. While biologic and small molecule therapies are effective IBD treatments, some therapies have been implicated in an increased risk for MACE.

The Oral Surveillance postmarketing safety study of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis, for example, linked the agent to higher MACE and venous thromboembolism rates vs. a TNF inhibitor. As a result, the FDA restricted the JAK inhibitor drug class that includes tofacitinib.

While long-term extension studies in IBD have not linked oral small molecules to increases in MACE, the sample sizes and duration of follow-up have been limited, the authors noted. For this reason, Dr. Regueiro and colleagues decided to further evaluate the potential associations in people with IBD.

The cohorts included 67,607 adults with IBD taking a biologic and another 67,607 with IBD not receiving a biologic between January 2021 and June 2023. The researchers also compared 3,194 adults with IBD taking an oral small molecule treatment vs. another 3,194 people with IBD not receiving these medications. These large sample sizes were possible through use of TriNetX, a large U.S. claims database that includes millions of patients.
 

Key findings

The propensity matched study revealed that adults with IBD on biologics had a significantly lower risk for coronary artery disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.72; P < .0001), myocardial infarction (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.72; P < .0001) or stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; P < .0001), compared with IBD patients not on biological therapy.

The researchers also found a lower risk for venous thromboembolism associated with biologics (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89; P < .0001).

Dr. Regueiro said that active inflammation in the bowel or anywhere in the body is associated with higher rates of blood clot formation. “The thought is that decreasing inflammation with treatment may actually decrease the rates of blood clots. So, in essence, we think that biologics may actually decrease MACE.”

IBD patients receiving an oral small molecule did not have a significantly increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .7148) or myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.78; P = .8903). The risk of stroke was lower but not significantly different (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .5148).

In addition, there was no significant change in risk for venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.39; P = .5957).

All cohorts were matched for age, race, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, and medications including immunomodulators, 5-aminosalicylic acids, and steroids. MACE and VTE were noted by ICD-10 codes at least 30 days after starting treatment.

Strengths of the study included large sample size, diverse cohorts, and propensity score matching. Limitations included the study’s retrospective design.
 

Difference in IBD and rheumatoid arthritis populations

The authors noted: “Although further study is needed, it is possible that adequate treatment of bowel inflammation in IBD patients results in a decreased risk of MACE.”

Dr. Regueiro and colleagues are updating and expanding the research to increase the number of patients. They are also planning to evaluate the long-term extension data with individual biologics and small molecules to assess the consistency of their findings. “On preliminary glance, we believe that our results will be consistent with future study.”

“When you look at the studies, the increase in cardiac risk issues we’re seeing are in rheumatoid arthritis. And when we look at the patients with inflammatory bowel disease, we don’t see it,” session co-moderator John Leighton, MD, said when asked to comment. “So we think that there is a difference in the two populations, and this study gives further credence to that.”

“There are probably some high-risk populations that we still want to be careful with,” added Dr. Leighton, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. “But the risk is not as great as they initially saw in the rheumatoid [arthritis] patients – and it’s a good thing because these drugs work very well.”

The study was independently supported. Lead author Dr. Qapaja had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro is an advisory committee or board member and consultant for Alfasigma, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Miraca Labs, Prometheus, Salix, Seres, and Target RWE. He serves in these roles and receives unrestricted educational grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. He also receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health. Dr. Leighton is an advisory committee/board member for Braintree.

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

VANCOUVER – In contrast to some previous research, investigators found no significant correlation between common biologic and oral small molecule treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

In addition, biologics such as infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, natalizumab, and ustekinumab not only did not increase risk, but they were also linked to a significantly lower risk of major cardiovascular and thromboembolic events.

Risk reduction with biologics ranged from 15% for venous thromboembolism to 34% for myocardial infarction.

“The decrease in MACE with biologics was significant – and a bit surprising – but it correlates with the theory that by decreasing inflammation, there is a decrease in MACE,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chief of the Digestive Disease Institute at Cleveland Clinic, and senior author of the study.

“Our thought was that we would not see an increase in MACE and it would be equivalent between patients with IBD treated with advanced therapies and patients not treated with advanced therapies,” he told this news organization.

The findings “are consistent with some of the emerging long-term extension data from IBD clinical trials,” Dr. Regueiro reported at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting. “And I’ll make an editorial comment for those that treat and practice in inflammatory bowel disease: I think these data continue to support, affirm, and hopefully comfort us.”
 

Therapies previously implicated in increased MACE risk

IBD itself is associated with increased MACE risk, likely because of chronic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, the researchers note. While biologic and small molecule therapies are effective IBD treatments, some therapies have been implicated in an increased risk for MACE.

The Oral Surveillance postmarketing safety study of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis, for example, linked the agent to higher MACE and venous thromboembolism rates vs. a TNF inhibitor. As a result, the FDA restricted the JAK inhibitor drug class that includes tofacitinib.

While long-term extension studies in IBD have not linked oral small molecules to increases in MACE, the sample sizes and duration of follow-up have been limited, the authors noted. For this reason, Dr. Regueiro and colleagues decided to further evaluate the potential associations in people with IBD.

The cohorts included 67,607 adults with IBD taking a biologic and another 67,607 with IBD not receiving a biologic between January 2021 and June 2023. The researchers also compared 3,194 adults with IBD taking an oral small molecule treatment vs. another 3,194 people with IBD not receiving these medications. These large sample sizes were possible through use of TriNetX, a large U.S. claims database that includes millions of patients.
 

Key findings

The propensity matched study revealed that adults with IBD on biologics had a significantly lower risk for coronary artery disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.72; P < .0001), myocardial infarction (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.72; P < .0001) or stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; P < .0001), compared with IBD patients not on biological therapy.

The researchers also found a lower risk for venous thromboembolism associated with biologics (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89; P < .0001).

Dr. Regueiro said that active inflammation in the bowel or anywhere in the body is associated with higher rates of blood clot formation. “The thought is that decreasing inflammation with treatment may actually decrease the rates of blood clots. So, in essence, we think that biologics may actually decrease MACE.”

IBD patients receiving an oral small molecule did not have a significantly increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .7148) or myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.78; P = .8903). The risk of stroke was lower but not significantly different (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .5148).

In addition, there was no significant change in risk for venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.39; P = .5957).

All cohorts were matched for age, race, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, and medications including immunomodulators, 5-aminosalicylic acids, and steroids. MACE and VTE were noted by ICD-10 codes at least 30 days after starting treatment.

Strengths of the study included large sample size, diverse cohorts, and propensity score matching. Limitations included the study’s retrospective design.
 

Difference in IBD and rheumatoid arthritis populations

The authors noted: “Although further study is needed, it is possible that adequate treatment of bowel inflammation in IBD patients results in a decreased risk of MACE.”

Dr. Regueiro and colleagues are updating and expanding the research to increase the number of patients. They are also planning to evaluate the long-term extension data with individual biologics and small molecules to assess the consistency of their findings. “On preliminary glance, we believe that our results will be consistent with future study.”

“When you look at the studies, the increase in cardiac risk issues we’re seeing are in rheumatoid arthritis. And when we look at the patients with inflammatory bowel disease, we don’t see it,” session co-moderator John Leighton, MD, said when asked to comment. “So we think that there is a difference in the two populations, and this study gives further credence to that.”

“There are probably some high-risk populations that we still want to be careful with,” added Dr. Leighton, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. “But the risk is not as great as they initially saw in the rheumatoid [arthritis] patients – and it’s a good thing because these drugs work very well.”

The study was independently supported. Lead author Dr. Qapaja had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro is an advisory committee or board member and consultant for Alfasigma, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Miraca Labs, Prometheus, Salix, Seres, and Target RWE. He serves in these roles and receives unrestricted educational grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. He also receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health. Dr. Leighton is an advisory committee/board member for Braintree.

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

VANCOUVER – In contrast to some previous research, investigators found no significant correlation between common biologic and oral small molecule treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

In addition, biologics such as infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, natalizumab, and ustekinumab not only did not increase risk, but they were also linked to a significantly lower risk of major cardiovascular and thromboembolic events.

Risk reduction with biologics ranged from 15% for venous thromboembolism to 34% for myocardial infarction.

“The decrease in MACE with biologics was significant – and a bit surprising – but it correlates with the theory that by decreasing inflammation, there is a decrease in MACE,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chief of the Digestive Disease Institute at Cleveland Clinic, and senior author of the study.

“Our thought was that we would not see an increase in MACE and it would be equivalent between patients with IBD treated with advanced therapies and patients not treated with advanced therapies,” he told this news organization.

The findings “are consistent with some of the emerging long-term extension data from IBD clinical trials,” Dr. Regueiro reported at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting. “And I’ll make an editorial comment for those that treat and practice in inflammatory bowel disease: I think these data continue to support, affirm, and hopefully comfort us.”
 

Therapies previously implicated in increased MACE risk

IBD itself is associated with increased MACE risk, likely because of chronic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, the researchers note. While biologic and small molecule therapies are effective IBD treatments, some therapies have been implicated in an increased risk for MACE.

The Oral Surveillance postmarketing safety study of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis, for example, linked the agent to higher MACE and venous thromboembolism rates vs. a TNF inhibitor. As a result, the FDA restricted the JAK inhibitor drug class that includes tofacitinib.

While long-term extension studies in IBD have not linked oral small molecules to increases in MACE, the sample sizes and duration of follow-up have been limited, the authors noted. For this reason, Dr. Regueiro and colleagues decided to further evaluate the potential associations in people with IBD.

The cohorts included 67,607 adults with IBD taking a biologic and another 67,607 with IBD not receiving a biologic between January 2021 and June 2023. The researchers also compared 3,194 adults with IBD taking an oral small molecule treatment vs. another 3,194 people with IBD not receiving these medications. These large sample sizes were possible through use of TriNetX, a large U.S. claims database that includes millions of patients.
 

Key findings

The propensity matched study revealed that adults with IBD on biologics had a significantly lower risk for coronary artery disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.72; P < .0001), myocardial infarction (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.72; P < .0001) or stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; P < .0001), compared with IBD patients not on biological therapy.

The researchers also found a lower risk for venous thromboembolism associated with biologics (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89; P < .0001).

Dr. Regueiro said that active inflammation in the bowel or anywhere in the body is associated with higher rates of blood clot formation. “The thought is that decreasing inflammation with treatment may actually decrease the rates of blood clots. So, in essence, we think that biologics may actually decrease MACE.”

IBD patients receiving an oral small molecule did not have a significantly increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .7148) or myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.78; P = .8903). The risk of stroke was lower but not significantly different (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .5148).

In addition, there was no significant change in risk for venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.39; P = .5957).

All cohorts were matched for age, race, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, and medications including immunomodulators, 5-aminosalicylic acids, and steroids. MACE and VTE were noted by ICD-10 codes at least 30 days after starting treatment.

Strengths of the study included large sample size, diverse cohorts, and propensity score matching. Limitations included the study’s retrospective design.
 

Difference in IBD and rheumatoid arthritis populations

The authors noted: “Although further study is needed, it is possible that adequate treatment of bowel inflammation in IBD patients results in a decreased risk of MACE.”

Dr. Regueiro and colleagues are updating and expanding the research to increase the number of patients. They are also planning to evaluate the long-term extension data with individual biologics and small molecules to assess the consistency of their findings. “On preliminary glance, we believe that our results will be consistent with future study.”

“When you look at the studies, the increase in cardiac risk issues we’re seeing are in rheumatoid arthritis. And when we look at the patients with inflammatory bowel disease, we don’t see it,” session co-moderator John Leighton, MD, said when asked to comment. “So we think that there is a difference in the two populations, and this study gives further credence to that.”

“There are probably some high-risk populations that we still want to be careful with,” added Dr. Leighton, professor of medicine and chair of the division of gastroenterology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. “But the risk is not as great as they initially saw in the rheumatoid [arthritis] patients – and it’s a good thing because these drugs work very well.”

The study was independently supported. Lead author Dr. Qapaja had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro is an advisory committee or board member and consultant for Alfasigma, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Miraca Labs, Prometheus, Salix, Seres, and Target RWE. He serves in these roles and receives unrestricted educational grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. He also receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health. Dr. Leighton is an advisory committee/board member for Braintree.

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

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

A blood test that measures biomarkers linked to manic symptoms can accurately identify patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who were previously misdiagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research shows. Investigators state that the test could identify up to 30% of patients with BD when used on its own and could be even more effective when combined with a standardized psychometric assessment.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the proof-of-concept study, investigators sought to identify biomarkers to accurately identify BD, which is frequently misdiagnosed as MDD because of overlapping symptoms and the lack of objective diagnostic tools.
• The study included 241 participants (70% female; mean age, 28 years) from the U.K.-based Delta Study who had been diagnosed with MDD within the past 5 years and had depressive symptoms as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (score ≥ 5).
• Participants completed an online questionnaire that included questions from the Mood Disorder Questionnaire and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale and were asked to return a dried blood spot (DBS) fasting blood sample.
• Investigators analyzed the DBS samples for 630 metabolites and contacted participants by phone to establish diagnoses at 6 and 12 months using the World Health Organization World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

TAKEAWAY:

• Investigators used a panel of 17 biomarkers to correctly identify 67 (27.8%) participants with BD who had been previously misdiagnosed with MDD. They confirmed MDD in the remaining 174 patients.
• The biomarkers used in the test were correlated primarily with lifetime manic symptoms and were validated in a separate group of 30 patients.
• The identified biomarker panel provided a mean cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (P < .001), with ceramide d18:0/24:1 emerging as the strongest biomarker.
• Combining biomarker readouts with patient-reported data significantly improved the performance of diagnostic models based on extensive demographic data and information from the Patient Health Questionnaire and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (P = .03 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The added value of biomarkers was particularly evident in scenarios where data on psychiatric symptoms were unavailable and at intermediate diagnostic thresholds, suggesting that biomarker tests may especially benefit patients who do not report their symptoms and whose diagnoses are uncertain,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jakub Tomasik, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), led the study, which was published online in JAMA Psychiatry. Stanley Medical Research Institute and Psyomics funded the study.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on confounding factors such as diet and blood pressure were missing. In addition, investigators noted that the sample mostly comprised White Internet users and was not representative of all individuals with BD.

Dr. Tomasik has a patent pending for DBS blood biomarkers. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

A blood test that measures biomarkers linked to manic symptoms can accurately identify patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who were previously misdiagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research shows. Investigators state that the test could identify up to 30% of patients with BD when used on its own and could be even more effective when combined with a standardized psychometric assessment.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the proof-of-concept study, investigators sought to identify biomarkers to accurately identify BD, which is frequently misdiagnosed as MDD because of overlapping symptoms and the lack of objective diagnostic tools.
• The study included 241 participants (70% female; mean age, 28 years) from the U.K.-based Delta Study who had been diagnosed with MDD within the past 5 years and had depressive symptoms as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (score ≥ 5).
• Participants completed an online questionnaire that included questions from the Mood Disorder Questionnaire and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale and were asked to return a dried blood spot (DBS) fasting blood sample.
• Investigators analyzed the DBS samples for 630 metabolites and contacted participants by phone to establish diagnoses at 6 and 12 months using the World Health Organization World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

TAKEAWAY:

• Investigators used a panel of 17 biomarkers to correctly identify 67 (27.8%) participants with BD who had been previously misdiagnosed with MDD. They confirmed MDD in the remaining 174 patients.
• The biomarkers used in the test were correlated primarily with lifetime manic symptoms and were validated in a separate group of 30 patients.
• The identified biomarker panel provided a mean cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (P < .001), with ceramide d18:0/24:1 emerging as the strongest biomarker.
• Combining biomarker readouts with patient-reported data significantly improved the performance of diagnostic models based on extensive demographic data and information from the Patient Health Questionnaire and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (P = .03 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The added value of biomarkers was particularly evident in scenarios where data on psychiatric symptoms were unavailable and at intermediate diagnostic thresholds, suggesting that biomarker tests may especially benefit patients who do not report their symptoms and whose diagnoses are uncertain,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jakub Tomasik, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), led the study, which was published online in JAMA Psychiatry. Stanley Medical Research Institute and Psyomics funded the study.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on confounding factors such as diet and blood pressure were missing. In addition, investigators noted that the sample mostly comprised White Internet users and was not representative of all individuals with BD.

Dr. Tomasik has a patent pending for DBS blood biomarkers. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

A blood test that measures biomarkers linked to manic symptoms can accurately identify patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who were previously misdiagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research shows. Investigators state that the test could identify up to 30% of patients with BD when used on its own and could be even more effective when combined with a standardized psychometric assessment.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the proof-of-concept study, investigators sought to identify biomarkers to accurately identify BD, which is frequently misdiagnosed as MDD because of overlapping symptoms and the lack of objective diagnostic tools.
• The study included 241 participants (70% female; mean age, 28 years) from the U.K.-based Delta Study who had been diagnosed with MDD within the past 5 years and had depressive symptoms as assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (score ≥ 5).
• Participants completed an online questionnaire that included questions from the Mood Disorder Questionnaire and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale and were asked to return a dried blood spot (DBS) fasting blood sample.
• Investigators analyzed the DBS samples for 630 metabolites and contacted participants by phone to establish diagnoses at 6 and 12 months using the World Health Organization World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

TAKEAWAY:

• Investigators used a panel of 17 biomarkers to correctly identify 67 (27.8%) participants with BD who had been previously misdiagnosed with MDD. They confirmed MDD in the remaining 174 patients.
• The biomarkers used in the test were correlated primarily with lifetime manic symptoms and were validated in a separate group of 30 patients.
• The identified biomarker panel provided a mean cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (P < .001), with ceramide d18:0/24:1 emerging as the strongest biomarker.
• Combining biomarker readouts with patient-reported data significantly improved the performance of diagnostic models based on extensive demographic data and information from the Patient Health Questionnaire and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (P = .03 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The added value of biomarkers was particularly evident in scenarios where data on psychiatric symptoms were unavailable and at intermediate diagnostic thresholds, suggesting that biomarker tests may especially benefit patients who do not report their symptoms and whose diagnoses are uncertain,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jakub Tomasik, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), led the study, which was published online in JAMA Psychiatry. Stanley Medical Research Institute and Psyomics funded the study.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on confounding factors such as diet and blood pressure were missing. In addition, investigators noted that the sample mostly comprised White Internet users and was not representative of all individuals with BD.

Dr. Tomasik has a patent pending for DBS blood biomarkers. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

VANCOUVER – Two multitarget stool tests in development compare favorably for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk people, suggest two new studies.

In a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study, researchers assessed a multitarget stool RNA test (mt-sRNA; Colosense, Geneoscopy) vs. colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas and CRC in average-risk individuals aged 45 years and older.

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, investigators evaluated the clinical performance of a next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA; Cologuard, Exact Sciences) and fecal hemoglobin assay for CRC screening in adults aged 40 years and older.

Both studies were presented at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting.
 

RNA as a biomarker

For CRC-PREVENT, which evaluated the mt-sRNA test, David Lieberman, MD, professor of medicine and former chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues recruited a diverse group of 8,289 adults undergoing colonoscopy at one of more than 3,800 endoscopy centers nationwide. Recruitment included outreach through social media, which could be used to improve future screening rates, Dr. Lieberman said.

The full study findings of CRC-PREVENT were also published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Participants provided stool samples before colonoscopy. Colosense includes a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and tests for eight different strands of RNA. The mt-sRNA test results were compared with the colonoscopy results.

The mt-sRNA test had 100% sensitivity for early, stage I cancers, which were detected in 12 patients. Advanced adenomas were detected with an overall sensitivity of 45%. When the advanced adenomas were ≥ 2 cm, sensitivity increased to 51%.

Specificity was 87% among patients with negative findings for hyperplastic polyps or lesions.

The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvements in sensitivity for CRC (94% vs. 77%; P = .029) and advanced adenomas (45% vs 29%; P < .001), when compared with the FIT results alone.

“This is the first large study to include the 45- to 49-year-old population, for whom screening is now recommended,” Dr. Lieberman told this news organization.

Results show a sensitivity of 100% for detecting CRC and 44% for advanced adenomas in this younger age group. That performance is “excellent,” said Dr. Lieberman.

Results also were reliable across all ages.

“The consistent performance across all age groups for whom screening is recommended is a key finding and was totally unknown” before this study, Dr. Lieberman said.

RNA-based testing may have an advantage over DNA biomarker tests, which can be prone to age-related DNA methylation changes, he added.
 

Detection by DNA

Thomas Imperiale, MD, distinguished professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues conducted the BLUE-C trial to validate the next-generation mt-sDNA test for CRC screening.

The mt-sDNA assay tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.

Dr. Imperiale and colleagues studied 20,176 adults (mean age, 63 years) scheduled for screening colonoscopy at one of 186 U.S. sites. Participants provided a stool sample for the mt-sDNA test and comparator FIT prior to colonoscopy preparation. They compared results to colonoscopy and FIT findings.

Colonoscopy revealed 98 people with CRC, 2,144 with advanced precancerous lesions, and 17,934 with no advanced neoplasia.

Sensitivity of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval, 87.1-97.7), advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6), and advanced precancerous lesions with high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3).

Sensitivities of the mt-sDNA test for detecting CRC and advanced precancerous lesions were significantly higher than FIT (P < .0001).

In terms of specificity, the mt-sDNA test had a specificity of 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1-91.0) for the absence of advanced neoplasia. Specificity for non-neoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1).

The mt-sDNA test demonstrated high specificity and high CRC and advanced precancerous lesion sensitivity. The test outperformed FIT for these factors on sensitivity but not specificity, the authors noted.

Improved specificity was a goal of developing this next-generation assay. The BLUE-C trial demonstrated a 30% improvement in specificity that “will decrease the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed for false-positive results,” said Dr. Imperiale.

“I was pleased to see the robust results support this new battery of markers,” Dr. Imperiale added. Improvements associated with this next-generation test could “help further reduce the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer.”
 

Tests to provide more noninvasive options

Both are “important studies” that look at a large, average-risk screening population in the United States, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research. “Both show high sensitivity for detecting CRC and decent specificity for advanced adenomas.”

While we will have to wait for the full publications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, and insurance coverage, gastroenterologists can expect to see these tests in clinical use in the near future, added Dr. Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, and lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.

These tests provide more noninvasive options for CRC screening and are more accurate, which hopefully will translate into increased screening and a reduced burden of CRC, she said.

“We are always looking for ways to increase colon cancer screening uptake,” said Brooks Cash, MD, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas, Houston, who also was not affiliated with the research.

Certainly, the multitarget stool DNA is not a new concept with Cologuard, but it is a new assay, Dr. Cash said.

“It’s significantly different than their previous version, and they were able to show improved sensitivity as well as specificity, which has been one of the concerns,” he said.

The multitarget stool RNA test “shows very similar results,” Dr. Cash added. “Their predicate is that it’s slightly different and actually may return very good sensitivity for older patients, where you don’t have the same methylation issues with the DNA.”

“It will be interesting to see how they play out,” he added.

“The critical part to all of these tests is that if a patient has a positive test, they need to get a colonoscopy. That doesn’t always happen,” Dr. Cash said. “We have to make sure that there’s appropriate education for not only patients but also providers, many of whom will not be gastroenterologists.”

Geneoscopy funded the CRC-PREVENT trial. Exact Sciences funded the BLUE-C trial. Dr. Lieberman is an advisor or review panel member for Geneoscopy. Dr. Imperiale receives grant or research support from Exact Sciences. Dr. Shaukat reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cash is on the advisory board for Exact Sciences.

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

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
 

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.
 

NEW YORK – Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) make up only about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, yet this disease presents a vexing problem. The majority of patients relapse, but efforts to develop new therapies are stymied by the rarity and genetic varieties of the condition.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

“Over the past 5 years, researchers have gotten a clearer picture of the different subtypes of peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and with this knowledge we are trying to identify potential targets of new treatments. Despite some progress, the need for these new treatments is still acute, due to the disease’s many subtypes and the difficulty of enrolling sufficient numbers of patients in clinical trials,” said Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia and Myeloma Congress 2023, in New York. Before her presentation at this year’s conference, Dr. Vose was awarded the SASS-ARENA Foundation’s John Ultmann Award for Major Contributions to Lymphoma Research.

Dr. Vose noted that only one subtype of PTCL, ALK+ ALCL, responds well to frontline treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone). Patients with the ALK+ ALCL signature treated with CHOP have a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 70%-90%, but this group only makes up about 6% of PTCL cases in North America, she added.

One of the most promising breakthroughs in treatment has been the addition of the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) to chemotherapy with CHP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone), Dr. Vose said. Results from the ECHELON-2 trial indicate that CD30+ PTCL patients have improved performance with R-CHP, compared with CHOP; 5-year progression free survival (PFS) rates were 51.4% with R+CHP versus 43.0% with CHOP, and 5-year overall survival rates were 70.1% versus 61.0%, respectively.

“ALCL is one of the most prevalent PTCL subtypes and accounts for about 24% of all PTCL; the current standard-of-care for induction treatment in these patients is BV-CHP,” said Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. Dr. Ruan explained the limitation of adding BV-CHP, saying “We don’t have as effective biological targeted therapies in other subtypes of T-cell lymphoma, such as PTCL NOS [not-other specified] or angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.”

There is evidence that autologous stem cell transplant (ACST) can increase PFS and OS in newly diagnosed patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), but not in patients with other types of newly diagnosed PTCL. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS for patients with AITL who received ASCT + chemotherapy were 93.3% and 68.8 respectively versus 52.9% and 41.2 in the non-ASCT group. This news is promising, yet Dr. Vose presented statistics indicating that AITL PTCL has been estimated to account for less than 19% of PTCL cases.

Despite the improvements in PFS and OS in a few subtypes for frontline PTCL, 60% of patients with non-ALCL PTCL will relapse, and relapsed/ refractory (R/R) PTCL patients have a median PFS of 9.6 months. Several studies have shown some promise for improving outcomes in R/R PTCL patients, such as the phase-II PRIMO study of duvelisib (a dual PI3K-delta,gamma inhibitor), in which there was an overall response rate of 50% and a complete response rate of 32%. Despite these modest gains, the prognosis for most PTCL patients remains poor. Dr. Vose concluded her presentation by reiterating the need for new agents and for further research. She emphasized that studies will need to be collaborative and international to enroll sufficient patients.

Dr Ruan drew a similar conclusion, noting “We need to increase clinical, translational and basic research on a collaborative scale, so that we can advance bench-to-bedside discovery and bring new treatment to patients quickly.”

Dr. Vose disclosed research funding from Epizyme, GenMab, Kite, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Ruan disclosed clinical research trial support from BMS and Daiichi Sankyo.