User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Induction chemotherapy in first line improves survival for locally advanced cervical cancer
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
and should be considered the new standard of care, according to Mary McCormack, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologic and breast oncologist at the University College Hospital, London.
Dr. McCormack was the lead investigator on a phase 3 trial called INTERLACE that tested the approach against stand-alone chemoradiation – the current standard of care – in 500 women, majority in the United Kingdom and Mexico.
She made her comments after presenting the results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The 250 women randomized to induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation (CRT) had a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), with a 5-year PFS of 73% versus 64% among 250 randomized to CRT alone. Likewise, overall survival (OS) improved 39% in the induction group, with a 5-year OS of 80% versus 72% among women who went straight to CRT.
Induction chemotherapy consisted of 6 weekly doses of carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 followed by CRT within 7 days. CRT consisted of 5 weekly doses of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 plus external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Compliance in both arms was high.
“Induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin delivered immediately before chemoradiotherapy should be considered the new standard in locally advanced cervical cancer, and [it] is feasible across diverse healthcare settings,” Dr. McCormack said.
Study discussant Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of California, Irvine, was impressed by the results.
“This is the first phase 3 randomized trial in locally advanced cervical cancer that has shown [an overall] survival benefit in over 2 decades. Physicians taking care of these patients could consider induction chemotherapy ... tomorrow morning,” he said.
Dr. Tewari brought up how to incorporate the findings with another trial presented earlier at the meeting, KEYNOTE-A18.
KEYNOTE-A18 added pembrolizumab to CRT, which resulted in substantially better PFS and a strong trend towards better OS that could reach statistical significance with additional follow-up.
Both trials are “practice changing” for locally advanced cervical cancer. “I think we are ready for a paradigm shift,” Dr. Tewari said.
He noted a limit in the INTERLACE presentation was that outcomes were not broken down by tumor stage.
Over three-quarters of the women had stage 2 disease; 9% had stage 1 disease, and only 14% had stage 3B or 4A tumors. Almost 60% of the women were node negative.
It’s unclear at this point if women who have node-negative stage 1B3 or stage 2A-B disease “really need induction chemotherapy. I would think that those patients are probably curable by standard chemoradiation plus brachytherapy, and that the real [benefit would be] for stage 3B and 4A patients,” he said.
The median age in the study was 46 years, and 82% of the women had squamous cell tumors.
Grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in the induction arm, 59% versus 48%, driven mostly by a higher incidence of neutropenia and other hematologic adverse events with induction.
One woman died of adverse events in the induction arm and two died in the CRT-alone arm.
Local and pelvic relapse rates were equal in both groups at 16%, but total distant relapses were lower with induction chemotherapy, 12% versus 20%, over a median follow-up of 64 months.
The work was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. McCormack is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK, and disclosed honoraria/meeting expenses from Daiicho Sankyo, Roche, and Medscape, the publisher of this article. Among other industry ties, Dr. Tewari is an advisor/consultant, researcher, and speaker for Merck, SeaGen, and AstraZeneca.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023
Subcutaneous ocrelizumab, ofatumumab ‘reassuring’ in MS
MILAN – , suggest results from two clinical trials.
For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).
After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.
The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).
Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Anti-CD20–naive
OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.
They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.
In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.
The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.
By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.
The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.
However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.
Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”
He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
Efficacy maintained
The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.
After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.
Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.
The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.
At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.
The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.
They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
Reassuring results
“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.
“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.
“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.
“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.
In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”
OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , suggest results from two clinical trials.
For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).
After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.
The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).
Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Anti-CD20–naive
OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.
They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.
In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.
The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.
By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.
The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.
However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.
Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”
He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
Efficacy maintained
The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.
After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.
Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.
The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.
At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.
The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.
They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
Reassuring results
“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.
“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.
“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.
“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.
In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”
OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – , suggest results from two clinical trials.
For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).
After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.
The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).
Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.
The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
Anti-CD20–naive
OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.
They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.
In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.
The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.
By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.
The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.
However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.
Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”
He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
Efficacy maintained
The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.
After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.
Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.
The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.
At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.
The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.
They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
Reassuring results
“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.
“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.
“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.
“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.
In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”
OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Promising topline phase 2 results for novel oral Alzheimer’s drug
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.
While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.
He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.
The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
‘Surprised and shocked’
The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.
T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.
The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.
In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.
“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”
“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.
Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.
The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.
T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.
Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.
“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
Lessons learned
Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.
However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.
Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CTAD 2023
Lag in antidepressant treatment response explained?
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – , new imaging data suggest.
In a double-blind study, more than 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to the SSRI escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks. Using PET imaging, the investigators found that over time, synaptic density significantly increased significantly in the neocortex and hippocampus but only in patients taking the active drug.
The results point to two conclusions, said study investigator Gitta Moos Knudsen, MD, PhD, clinical professor and chief physician at the department of clinical medicine, neurology, psychiatry and sensory sciences at Copenhagen (Denmark) University Hospital.
First, they indicate that SSRIs increase synaptic density in brain areas critically involved in depression, a finding that would go some way to indicating that the synaptic density in the brain may be involved in how antidepressants function, “which would give us a target for developing novel drugs against depression,” said Dr. Knudsen.
“Secondly, our data suggest synapses build up over a period of weeks, which would explain why the effects of these drugs take time to kick in,” she added.
The findings were presented at the 36th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and simultaneously published online in Molecular Psychiatry.
Marked increase in synaptic density
SSRIs are widely used for depression as well as anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is thought that they act via neuroplasticity and synaptic remodeling to improve cognition and emotion processing. However, the investigators note clinical evidence is lacking.
For the study, the researchers randomly assigned healthy individuals to either 20-mg escitalopram or placebo for 3-5 weeks.
They performed PET with the 11C-UCB-J tracer, which allows imaging of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) in the brain, synaptic density, as well as changes in density over time, in the hippocampus and neocortex.
Between May 2020 and October 2021, 17 individuals were assigned to escitalopram and 15 to placebo. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of age, sex, and PET-related variables. Serum escitalopram measurements confirmed that all participants in the active drug group were compliant.
When synaptic density was assessed at a single time point, an average of 29 days after the intervention, there were no significant differences between the escitalopram and placebo groups in either the neocortex (P = .41) or in the hippocampus (P = .26).
However, when they performed a secondary analysis of the time-dependent effect on SV2A levels, they found a marked difference between the two study groups.
Compared with the placebo group, participants taking escitalopram had a marked increase in synaptic density in both the neocortex (rp value, 0.58; P = .003) and the hippocampus (rp value, 0.41; P = .048).
In contrast, there were no significant changes in synaptic density in either the neocortex (rp value, –0.01; P = .95) or the hippocampus (rp value, –0.06; P = .62) in the hippocampus.
“That is consistent with our clinical observation that it takes time to evolve synaptic density, along with clinical improvement. Does that mean that the increase in synaptic density is a precondition for improvement in symptoms? We don’t know,” said Dr. Knudsen.
Exciting but not conclusive
Session co-chair Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of molecular psychiatry, King’s College London, agreed that the results do not prove the gradual increase in synaptic density the treatment response lag with SSRIs.
“We definitely don’t yet have all the data to know one way or the other,” he said in an interview.
Another potential hypothesis, he said, is that SSRIs are causing shifts in underlying brain circuits that lead to cognitive changes before there is a discernable improvement in mood.
Indeed, Dr. Howes suggested that increases in synaptic density and cognitive changes related to SSRI use are not necessarily dependent on each other and could even be unrelated.
Also commenting on the research, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said that the “delay in therapeutic action of antidepressants has been a puzzle to psychiatrists ever since they were first discerned over 50 years ago. So, these new data in humans, that use cutting edge brain imaging to demonstrate an increase in brain connections developing over the period that the depression lifts, are very exciting.”
Dr. Nutt added that the results provide further evidence that “enhancing serotonin function in the brain can have enduring health benefits.”
Funding support was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Lundbeck Foundation, Rigshospitalet, and the Swedish Research Council. Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library.
Dr. Knudsen declares relationships with Sage Biogen, H. Lundbeck, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Abbvie, and PureTechHealth. Another author declares relationships with Cambridge Cognition and PopReach via Cambridge Enterprise.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2023
Ocular MALT lymphoma: Radiation reduces relapse
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
“Our study represents the largest institutional cohort analysis on the course of patients with stage I POAML,” said first author Linrui Gao, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.
Dr. Gao presented these findings at ESMO 2023, held in Madrid.
“We confirm the indolent nature of this stage I disease, with mortality that is similar to the general population and a low rate of lymphoma-attributed mortality,” she said, adding that “radiation therapy was associated with the lowest relapse or disease progression, compared with [other treatments].”
POAML, which can involve lesions in areas including the eyelid, conjunctiva, orbit, and lacrimal gland, makes up about 7% of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphomas. However, the incidence is reported to be steadily increasing. With the majority of patients, 70%-85%, diagnosed as stage I, consensus on treatment approaches is lacking.
Guidelines typically recommend radiation therapy as the standard of care, and approximately 70% of POAML patients do receive the therapy, compared with only about 36% of those with early-stage MALT lymphoma, with the indolent nature of the disease likely weighing on decisions to forgo the treatment, Dr. Gao reported.
“Adoption of initial radiotherapy in early-stage POAML is relatively low worldwide, with possible reasons being [concerns] of a low survival benefit and long-term toxicities,” she said.
To evaluate the long-term outcomes based on baseline clinical features and treatments, Dr. Gao and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 262 patients with stage I POAML (ipsilateral or bilateral disease), enrolled between January 2000 and December 2020 at two hospitals in China.
Of the patients, who had a median age of 55 and a male-female ratio of 1:3, 82 were initially treated with radiation therapy, 81 with observation, 70 with surgery, and 29 with systemic treatment.
Those receiving radiation therapy had higher rates of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or higher (P = .02), higher elevations of LDH (P = .03), and higher rates of chronic disease (P < .001), while other baseline characteristics between the groups, including age, T stage, symptom duration, and other factors, were similar.
With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 96.8% and 90%, respectively, which is similar to the survival rate in the general population in China.
Likewise, the 5- and 10-year rates of lymphoma-specific mortality were both extremely low, at 0.4%, and the corresponding rates of competing nonlymphoma mortality at 5 and 10 years were 2.3% and 4.2%, also consistent with the general population.
The 5- and 10-year mortality rates remained similar to the general population in stratifying patients according to the initial treatment type (P = .767 between treatments).
In terms of recurrence, the overall failure rates were relatively high, with 19.5% of patients experiencing relapse at 5 years and 24.05% at 10 years.
“The failure rates show that the risk of relapse in POAML does not decrease over time,” Dr. Gao said.
Notably, those treated with radiation therapy had a significantly decreased 5-year cumulative risk of failure (8.5%), compared with those who only received observation (29.6%), surgery (22.9%), or systemic treatment (17.2%; overall, P = .002).
The most common failure site was the ipsilateral orbit, and again, rates of those relapses were significantly lower with radiation therapy (2.4%), compared with observation (23.5%), surgery (21.4%), and systemic treatment (17.3%).
However, rates of relapses in other sites, including the contralateral orbit, extraocular site, and multiple sites, were similar among all treatment groups. One patient receiving systemic treatment had large cell transformation, associated with poorer outcomes.
Strategies after recurrence were salvage therapy for 53 patients, including 27 receiving radiation therapy, and observation for 10 patients.
Dr. Gao noted that treatment failure was not associated with higher mortality rates. “However, given the limited number of cases, we think more cases and longer follow-up are needed,” she told MDedge.
Among the most common acute toxicities were ocular dermatitis or mucositis, described as mild, among 23 patients receiving radiation therapy. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications of mild eye irritation and periorbital edema, and five patients receiving systemic treatment experienced grade 2-3 leukopenia. There were no severe adverse events.
In terms of late ocular adverse effects, overall, 3 patients in the radiation therapy group developed cataracts and 143 patients developed dry-eye disease.
“Radiation therapy was associated with the lowest rate of relapse progression, compared with observation, surgery, and systemic treatment, with similar overall and recurrent survival,” Dr. Gao said.
“Based on our study results, radiotherapy should be considered as the optimal treatment for all patients with stage I disease because of its lowest failure risk and minor toxicity,” Dr. Gao told MDedge.
“However, the radiotherapy dose and techniques should be further optimized in good clinical trials,” she noted. “There are some clinical studies undergoing to explore the modern radiotherapy strategy, including by our group.”
Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand, in Dijon, France, noted that “interestingly, radiotherapy reduced the risk of local relapse but not systemic relapse.”
Benefits linked to radiation therapy dose?
Furthermore, the study adds to evidence suggesting the role of dose in radiation therapy’s benefits in POAML, Dr. Casanovas noted. He pointed to previous research showing that, with a median radiotherapy dose of 26 Gy, stage I POAML patients had a local relapse rate of 9.5%, whereas in the current study, which reported a median radiotherapy dose of 30.6 Gy, the local relapse rate was just 2%.
“Regarding the risk of local relapse, it’s important to see that, as previous published, the risk of a local relapse depends probably on the dose of radiotherapy,” he said.
The results indicate that “radiation therapy could impact patients’ outcome. In comparison to previous research, this suggests benefits from a higher dose.”
He added that “it would be interesting to test in this series if patients receiving more or less 30 Gy had different outcomes or the risks of failure at different sites.”
Overall, the study confirms that POAML “can be safely treated with radiation therapy, which allows for a better chance of local control, compared with other options, but does not preclude relapse over time,” Dr. Casasnovas concluded, adding, “I think that a standardization of radiotherapy dose is warranted to provide guidelines to clinicians treating this infrequent population of patients.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
FROM ESMO 2023
How clinicians can prepare for and defend against social media attacks
WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.
The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.
Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
Online risks and benefits
A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.
“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”
The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.
While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.
Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.
“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.
“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
Proactive steps for protection
Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”
She recommended the following steps:
- Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
- Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
- Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
- Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
- Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.
For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.
Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:
- Sheep
- Sheeple
- Pharma
- Shill
- Die
- Psychopath
- Clown
- Various curse words
- The clown emoji
In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.
On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.
On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”
On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”
Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.
If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
Defending yourself in an attack
Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.
“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”
She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.
However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.
If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.
“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.
Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.
If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.
On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”
On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”
On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”
If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
Social media self-care
Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.
“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
Accurate information from a trusted source
Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.
“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”
Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.
“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”
Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.
“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”
There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.
WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.
The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.
Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
Online risks and benefits
A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.
“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”
The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.
While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.
Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.
“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.
“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
Proactive steps for protection
Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”
She recommended the following steps:
- Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
- Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
- Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
- Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
- Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.
For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.
Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:
- Sheep
- Sheeple
- Pharma
- Shill
- Die
- Psychopath
- Clown
- Various curse words
- The clown emoji
In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.
On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.
On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”
On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”
Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.
If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
Defending yourself in an attack
Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.
“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”
She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.
However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.
If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.
“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.
Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.
If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.
On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”
On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”
On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”
If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
Social media self-care
Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.
“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
Accurate information from a trusted source
Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.
“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”
Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.
“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”
Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.
“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”
There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.
WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.
The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.
Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
Online risks and benefits
A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.
“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”
The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.
While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.
Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.
“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.
“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
Proactive steps for protection
Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”
She recommended the following steps:
- Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
- Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
- Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
- Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
- Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.
For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.
Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:
- Sheep
- Sheeple
- Pharma
- Shill
- Die
- Psychopath
- Clown
- Various curse words
- The clown emoji
In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.
On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.
On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”
On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”
Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.
If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
Defending yourself in an attack
Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.
“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”
She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.
However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.
If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.
“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.
Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.
If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.
On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”
On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”
On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”
On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”
If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
Social media self-care
Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.
“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
Accurate information from a trusted source
Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.
“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”
Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.
“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”
Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.
“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”
There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.
AT AAP 2023
Frontline myeloma treatments: ASCT vs. CAR T
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
AT LLM CONGRESS 2023
Dato-DXd trumps chemo in advanced HR+/HER2– breast cancer
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.
At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
Different ADC, same target
Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.
Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).
Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.
Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.
In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
Efficacy results
In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.
At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.
As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001).
The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.
Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).
Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
Safety results
“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.
Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.
There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.
Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.
The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
Good, but we can do better
ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.
“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.
“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.
In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.
“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.
“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.
The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2023
‘Why did I choose this?’ Tackling burnout in oncology
MADRID – “Why did I choose this?”
That is the core question a Portuguese oncologist posed from the audience during a session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) that was dedicated to building a sustainable oncology workforce.
“Ten, twenty years ago, being a doctor was a dream,” she said, but right now doctors are underpaid, under strain, and have very few resources.
This oncologist is hardly alone.
A survey from ESMO conducted almost a decade ago found that more than 50% of oncologists across Europe, many of whom were early in their careers, reported being burned out.
This, Dr. Lim said, “was the starting point,” well before the COVID pandemic struck.
More recently, the pandemic has taken its own toll on the well-being of oncologists. A survey presented at ESMO 2020 revealed that 38% of participants, spanning 101 countries, reported experiencing burnout, and 66% said they were not able to perform their job.
Medscape’s 2023 Physician Burnout and Depression Report highlighted similar burnout rates, with 53% of U.S. physicians and 52% of oncologists saying they felt burned out, compared with about 42% in 2018, before the pandemic.
The oncology workforce is in crisis in every country, said Dr. Lim, from the Cancer Dynamics Lab, the Francis Crick Institute, London.
Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or feelings of cynicism, and a low sense of personal accomplishment, can result in a poor work-life balance as well as poor mental and physical health. Factors linked to burnout include social isolation, increased workload, reduced quality of work, lack of control over work, and stressful professional experiences.
Together, these factors can affect patient care and further exacerbate staffing issues, Dr. Lim said.
Staffing shortages are common. Oncologists often work long hours or on weekends to cover gaps caused by staffing shortages. Recent data revealed that in high-income countries, there are on average 0.65 medical oncologists and 0.25 radiation oncologists per 100 patients — a situation made worse by professionals taking early retirement or leaving medicine during the pandemic.
“We have seen that the shortage of human resources in many countries as well as the increasing workload related to the increasing number of cancers,” as well as patients surviving longer, have increased pressures on the healthcare system, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, president of ESMO, explained in a press conference.
While tackling these oncology workforce problems requires smaller, local changes to a physician’s daily routine, “the real change,” Dr. Lim said, lies at an infrastructure level.
In response to this chronic and growing problem, ESMO launched its Resilience Task Force in 2020 to evaluate burnout and well-being. The task force plans to publish a position paper in which it will propose a set of recommendations regarding the psychosocial risks of burnout as well as flexible work patterns, well-being resources, and targeted support.
A panel of experts at the meeting touched on some of these solutions.
Dealing with staff shortages is a must, said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, during the session. “It’s a simple mathematical equation,” Dr. Blay said. “We must increase the number of doctors in medical schools and the number of nurses and healthcare professionals in all schools.” Improving staffing would also help reduce chronic workload issues.
Resilience training should also be incorporated into physician training starting in medical school. Teaching oncologists how to deal with bad news and to cope when patients dies is particularly important.
“I was not taught that,” said the oncologist from Portugal. “I had to learn that at my own cost.”
The good news is that it’s possible to develop resiliency skills over time, said Claire Hardy, PhD, from Lancaster University, United Kingdom, who agreed that training programs could be one approach to improve oncologists’ work life.
However, a person’s needs are determined by their institution and personal responsibilities. “No one knows your job better than you,” Dr. Hardy said. “No one knows better than you where the inefficiencies are, where the bureaucracy is that could be taken away, or it could be done by somebody whose role it is to sort all that out.”
But having this understanding is not enough. Physician also need to feel “psychological safety to be able to speak out and say that something isn’t working right now or is too much,” or, “I’m spending too much time doing this.”
In other words, oncologists need to be able to set boundaries and say no.
Dr. Hardy said this concept “has been around a while, but it’s really gaining momentum,” and being able to discuss these issues in a forum such as the ESMO Congress is a promising start.
Dr. Lim has relationships with Janseen and SEOM. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – “Why did I choose this?”
That is the core question a Portuguese oncologist posed from the audience during a session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) that was dedicated to building a sustainable oncology workforce.
“Ten, twenty years ago, being a doctor was a dream,” she said, but right now doctors are underpaid, under strain, and have very few resources.
This oncologist is hardly alone.
A survey from ESMO conducted almost a decade ago found that more than 50% of oncologists across Europe, many of whom were early in their careers, reported being burned out.
This, Dr. Lim said, “was the starting point,” well before the COVID pandemic struck.
More recently, the pandemic has taken its own toll on the well-being of oncologists. A survey presented at ESMO 2020 revealed that 38% of participants, spanning 101 countries, reported experiencing burnout, and 66% said they were not able to perform their job.
Medscape’s 2023 Physician Burnout and Depression Report highlighted similar burnout rates, with 53% of U.S. physicians and 52% of oncologists saying they felt burned out, compared with about 42% in 2018, before the pandemic.
The oncology workforce is in crisis in every country, said Dr. Lim, from the Cancer Dynamics Lab, the Francis Crick Institute, London.
Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or feelings of cynicism, and a low sense of personal accomplishment, can result in a poor work-life balance as well as poor mental and physical health. Factors linked to burnout include social isolation, increased workload, reduced quality of work, lack of control over work, and stressful professional experiences.
Together, these factors can affect patient care and further exacerbate staffing issues, Dr. Lim said.
Staffing shortages are common. Oncologists often work long hours or on weekends to cover gaps caused by staffing shortages. Recent data revealed that in high-income countries, there are on average 0.65 medical oncologists and 0.25 radiation oncologists per 100 patients — a situation made worse by professionals taking early retirement or leaving medicine during the pandemic.
“We have seen that the shortage of human resources in many countries as well as the increasing workload related to the increasing number of cancers,” as well as patients surviving longer, have increased pressures on the healthcare system, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, president of ESMO, explained in a press conference.
While tackling these oncology workforce problems requires smaller, local changes to a physician’s daily routine, “the real change,” Dr. Lim said, lies at an infrastructure level.
In response to this chronic and growing problem, ESMO launched its Resilience Task Force in 2020 to evaluate burnout and well-being. The task force plans to publish a position paper in which it will propose a set of recommendations regarding the psychosocial risks of burnout as well as flexible work patterns, well-being resources, and targeted support.
A panel of experts at the meeting touched on some of these solutions.
Dealing with staff shortages is a must, said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, during the session. “It’s a simple mathematical equation,” Dr. Blay said. “We must increase the number of doctors in medical schools and the number of nurses and healthcare professionals in all schools.” Improving staffing would also help reduce chronic workload issues.
Resilience training should also be incorporated into physician training starting in medical school. Teaching oncologists how to deal with bad news and to cope when patients dies is particularly important.
“I was not taught that,” said the oncologist from Portugal. “I had to learn that at my own cost.”
The good news is that it’s possible to develop resiliency skills over time, said Claire Hardy, PhD, from Lancaster University, United Kingdom, who agreed that training programs could be one approach to improve oncologists’ work life.
However, a person’s needs are determined by their institution and personal responsibilities. “No one knows your job better than you,” Dr. Hardy said. “No one knows better than you where the inefficiencies are, where the bureaucracy is that could be taken away, or it could be done by somebody whose role it is to sort all that out.”
But having this understanding is not enough. Physician also need to feel “psychological safety to be able to speak out and say that something isn’t working right now or is too much,” or, “I’m spending too much time doing this.”
In other words, oncologists need to be able to set boundaries and say no.
Dr. Hardy said this concept “has been around a while, but it’s really gaining momentum,” and being able to discuss these issues in a forum such as the ESMO Congress is a promising start.
Dr. Lim has relationships with Janseen and SEOM. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – “Why did I choose this?”
That is the core question a Portuguese oncologist posed from the audience during a session at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) that was dedicated to building a sustainable oncology workforce.
“Ten, twenty years ago, being a doctor was a dream,” she said, but right now doctors are underpaid, under strain, and have very few resources.
This oncologist is hardly alone.
A survey from ESMO conducted almost a decade ago found that more than 50% of oncologists across Europe, many of whom were early in their careers, reported being burned out.
This, Dr. Lim said, “was the starting point,” well before the COVID pandemic struck.
More recently, the pandemic has taken its own toll on the well-being of oncologists. A survey presented at ESMO 2020 revealed that 38% of participants, spanning 101 countries, reported experiencing burnout, and 66% said they were not able to perform their job.
Medscape’s 2023 Physician Burnout and Depression Report highlighted similar burnout rates, with 53% of U.S. physicians and 52% of oncologists saying they felt burned out, compared with about 42% in 2018, before the pandemic.
The oncology workforce is in crisis in every country, said Dr. Lim, from the Cancer Dynamics Lab, the Francis Crick Institute, London.
Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or feelings of cynicism, and a low sense of personal accomplishment, can result in a poor work-life balance as well as poor mental and physical health. Factors linked to burnout include social isolation, increased workload, reduced quality of work, lack of control over work, and stressful professional experiences.
Together, these factors can affect patient care and further exacerbate staffing issues, Dr. Lim said.
Staffing shortages are common. Oncologists often work long hours or on weekends to cover gaps caused by staffing shortages. Recent data revealed that in high-income countries, there are on average 0.65 medical oncologists and 0.25 radiation oncologists per 100 patients — a situation made worse by professionals taking early retirement or leaving medicine during the pandemic.
“We have seen that the shortage of human resources in many countries as well as the increasing workload related to the increasing number of cancers,” as well as patients surviving longer, have increased pressures on the healthcare system, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, president of ESMO, explained in a press conference.
While tackling these oncology workforce problems requires smaller, local changes to a physician’s daily routine, “the real change,” Dr. Lim said, lies at an infrastructure level.
In response to this chronic and growing problem, ESMO launched its Resilience Task Force in 2020 to evaluate burnout and well-being. The task force plans to publish a position paper in which it will propose a set of recommendations regarding the psychosocial risks of burnout as well as flexible work patterns, well-being resources, and targeted support.
A panel of experts at the meeting touched on some of these solutions.
Dealing with staff shortages is a must, said Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD, during the session. “It’s a simple mathematical equation,” Dr. Blay said. “We must increase the number of doctors in medical schools and the number of nurses and healthcare professionals in all schools.” Improving staffing would also help reduce chronic workload issues.
Resilience training should also be incorporated into physician training starting in medical school. Teaching oncologists how to deal with bad news and to cope when patients dies is particularly important.
“I was not taught that,” said the oncologist from Portugal. “I had to learn that at my own cost.”
The good news is that it’s possible to develop resiliency skills over time, said Claire Hardy, PhD, from Lancaster University, United Kingdom, who agreed that training programs could be one approach to improve oncologists’ work life.
However, a person’s needs are determined by their institution and personal responsibilities. “No one knows your job better than you,” Dr. Hardy said. “No one knows better than you where the inefficiencies are, where the bureaucracy is that could be taken away, or it could be done by somebody whose role it is to sort all that out.”
But having this understanding is not enough. Physician also need to feel “psychological safety to be able to speak out and say that something isn’t working right now or is too much,” or, “I’m spending too much time doing this.”
In other words, oncologists need to be able to set boundaries and say no.
Dr. Hardy said this concept “has been around a while, but it’s really gaining momentum,” and being able to discuss these issues in a forum such as the ESMO Congress is a promising start.
Dr. Lim has relationships with Janseen and SEOM. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESMO 2023
Enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab hailed as new standard for upfront mUC
following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.
The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).
The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.
“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.
“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.
The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.
Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).
It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.
However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm
The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.
Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?
Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.
Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?
Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details
Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.
They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.
Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.
Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.
Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).
The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.
Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.
The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
CheckMate 901 details
In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.
PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).
Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.
Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.
EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.
Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.
The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).
The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.
“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.
“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.
The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.
Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).
It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.
However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm
The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.
Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?
Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.
Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?
Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details
Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.
They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.
Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.
Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.
Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).
The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.
Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.
The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
CheckMate 901 details
In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.
PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).
Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.
Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.
EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.
Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
following a phase 3 trial presented at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology annual meeting.
The combination soundly beat the current standard of care – platinum-based chemotherapy – with a median overall survival of 31.5 months among 442 subjects versus 16.1 months among 444 randomized to gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin, an unprecedented 53% drop in the risk of mortality (P < .00001).
The elimination of chemotherapy also meant that there were substantially fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events with the new combination.
“This is the first time we’ve managed to beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting for overall survival despite multiple previous attempts.” The 30% remission rate with enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab “is not something we’ve seen before,” said lead investigator Thomas Powles, MBBS, MD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the University of London, who presented the findings.
“We welcome a new standard of care in the management of advanced, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab,” said Andrea Apolo, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and discussant on the trial, dubbed EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39.
The news overshadowed a second trial presented immediately after Dr. Powles’ that also showed improvement in overall survival versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy, CheckMate 901.
Instead of replacing chemotherapy, CheckMate 901 added nivolumab. With 304 patients randomized to each arm, nivolumab add-on led to a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 18.9 months with stand-alone gemcitabine/cisplatin, a 22% drop in the risk of mortality (P = .0171).
It’s the first time that adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy improved survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, said lead investigator Michiel van der Heijden, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist and researcher at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
After decades of stagnation, Dr. Apolo said, it’s “monumental for our field” to have two trials that beat chemotherapy in the first-line setting.
However, she said that the much better survival with enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab means that the combination now “takes first place as the best first-line regimen in urothelial carcinoma.”
Major disruptions in the treatment paradigm
The crowning of a new first-line standard for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma means that everything else in the treatment paradigm has to shift, Dr. Apolo said, and there are many new questions that need to be answered.
Among the most pressing, should the previous first-line standard – platinum-based chemotherapy – now move to the second line and be considered the treatment of choice after progression? Also, is there still a role for the previous second-line standards, pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies, if pembrolizumab fails in the first line?
Dr. Apolo said investigators also need to figure out if there is a role for enfortumab vedotin/pembrolizumab in earlier-stage disease, such as muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and if the dose and duration of enfortumab vedotin can be reduced to limit its peculiar ocular and other toxicities.
Finally, “we must discuss cost,” she said. Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV+P) is expensive. “Will payers be able to afford” it?
Dr. Powles, the lead investigator on EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39, said he doesn’t know how negotiations are going with payers, but that he hopes they move quickly. “We’ve seen transformative results” with the combination for even aggressive cancers in very sick people. “I think it’s going to be a challenge with patients not to talk about these data.”
EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 details
Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab, and the makers/marketers of enfortumab vedotin, Astellas and Seagen, said they will use EV-302/KEYNOTE-059 to seek a first-line indication for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators.
They also said the results serve as the confirmation FDA required when it gave accelerated approval to the combination in April 2023 for cisplatin-ineligible patients based on tumor response rates and response durability, according to press releases from the companies.
Pembrolizumab (P) in the trial was dosed at 200 mg on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles to a maximum of 35 cycles; enfortumab vedotin (EV) was given on the first and eighth day of the cycle with no limit in the number of cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Cisplatin or carboplatin (C) in the control arm was delivered on the first day and gemcitabine (G) on the first and eighth days for up to six 3-week cycles.
Patients in both arms were split about equally between performance statuses of 0 or 1; less than 4% in each group had statuses of 2.
Echoing the overall survival (OS) results, progression-free survival (PFS) was a median of 12.5 months with EV-P versus 6.3 months with GC, a 55% drop in the risk of progression or death (P < .00001).
The results held regardless of PD-L1 expression, cisplatin eligibility, and the presence or absence of visceral metastases.
Follow-up treatments in the trial begin to address Dr. Apolo’s questions: Almost 60% of GC patients went on to a PD-1/L1 for subsequent maintenance or progression, and almost a quarter of EV+P patients went on to subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 55.9% of subjects in the EV+P group versus 69.5% in the GC arm.
The most common in the chemotherapy arm were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and nausea. The most common with EV+P were skin reactions, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and anemia,
CheckMate 901 details
In CheckMate 901, gemcitabine and cisplatin were administered on the first day of 3-week treatment cycles for up to 6 cycles; subjects randomized to nivolumab add-on received 360 mg on day 1 of each cycle, followed by 480 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years.
PFS results again mirrored OS, with a median PFS of 7.9 months in the nivolumab arm versus 7.6 months with stand-alone chemotherapy, a 28% drop in the risk of progression or death (P = .0012).
Although OS and PFS benefits were statistically significant overall, they were not significant in subgroup analyses of patients 65 years and older, women, or in patients with liver metastases.
Trends in OS and PFS actually favored chemotherapy in the 40 U.S. subjects (HR OS, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-3.88).
The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 61.8% with nivolumab add-on versus 51.7% with chemotherapy alone. Anemia and neutropenia were the most common in both arms, and higher in the nivolumab group.
EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 was funded by Seagen, Astellas, and Merck. CheckMate 901 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of nivolumab.
Dr. Powles reported extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, including being an advisor to and receiving research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, SeaGen, and Astellas, as well as travel expenses from Merck. Among other disclosures, Dr. Heijden is an advisor to Seagen and an advisor and researcher for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Apolo is an unpaid consultant to Merck, Astellas, Seagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
FROM ESMO 2023