Conference Coverage

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – In a large case series of metastatic breast cancer patients with pseudocirrhosis, researchers found that almost all such patients had hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease as well as extensive liver metastases. Pseudocirrhosis appears radiographically similar to cirrhosis, but lacks its classic pathologic features.

The study is the largest cohort of patients with pseudocirrhosis studied to date. “It provides important clinical information about the natural history of this condition to help oncologists better understand which patients develop this condition and what complications are most common. Interestingly, we found that patients who developed ascites had a worse overall survival than patients who did not develop ascites, which was not previously reported,” said Laura Huppert, MD, who presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pseudocirrhosis is commonly found in patients with metastatic breast cancer and can lead to ascites and varices, among other complications. “These problems can be quite debilitating and even life-threatening for our patients. In order to better diagnose and treat our patients with pseudocirrhosis, we first wanted to understand the natural history of this condition, including which patients develop it, what treatments they have received, and what complications are most frequent,” said Dr. Huppert, MD, who is a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was retrospective, making it impossible to determine causality. “It is possible that the biology of HR+ disease predisposes patients to the development of pseudocirrhosis through mechanisms that are not yet elucidated. Alternatively, this may be due to the fact that patients with HR+ disease tend to have longer survival and are on systemic therapy for longer periods of time, allowing more time for pseudocirrhosis to develop in response to systemic therapy,” Dr. Huppert said.

In future work, Dr. Huppert plans to examine a control arm of patients with liver disease who do not develop pseudocirrhosis to gain a better understanding of factors that might cause the condition. She also hopes to work with hepatologists to determine if new antifibrosis agents might be applicable to pseudocirrhosis. “There may be interesting things we can learn from other disease states and apply to this condition,” she said.

The researchers analyzed data from 120 patients with pseudocirrhosis. 82.5% of patients were HR+/HER2–, 11.7% were HR+/HER2+, 2.5% were HR–/HER2+, and 3.3% were triple negative. Liver metastases were present in all patients, and 82.5% had more than 15 liver lesions.

A total of 92.5% of patients had previously undergone chemotherapy before pseudocirrhosis was identified, and the median time to diagnosis of pseudocirrhosis after diagnosis of liver metastases was 18.7 months. 50% of patients with pseudocirrhosis had stable or responding disease. After pseudocirrhosis diagnosis, patients underwent a median of 1.0 additional lines of therapy, and the median overall survival following pseudocirrhosis diagnosis was 7.9 months. A total of 80.8% of patients went on to be diagnosed with ascites, 17.5% with esophageal varices, 21.7% with splenomegaly, 10.0% with gastrointestinal bleeding, and 9.2% with hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with radiographic evidence of ascites survived an average of 42.8 months after metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, while those without ascites survived an average of 76.2 months (P < .001).

Specialty care was rare: Just 7.5% of patients received a GI/hepatology consultation.

Dr. Huppert has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

A new study shows that being overweight may offer some women undergoing treatment for breast cancer protection against neutropenia – a potentially deadly outcome that can occur as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

It is known that body mass index can affect breast cancer risk and prognosis, but it is not known if BMI can affect how well endocrine therapy works in a given patient. In the PALLAS clinical trial, Georg Pfeiler, MD, Medical University of Vienna, and colleagues, conducted an analysis of 5,698 patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib. Dr. Pfeiler found that women who are overweight or obese had significantly less frequent and less severe cases of neutropenia. With fewer or less severe cases of neutropenia, there were also fewer interruptions in palbociclib treatment.

“One explanation for the lower discontinuation rates may be that the distributional volume of the drug is higher in overweight and obese patients leading to lower serum drug concentrations. It could also be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetics with respect to hyperinsulinemia,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who leads the Oncological Breast Outpatient Clinic and Bone Health Outpatient Clinic at the Medical University of Vienna.

The PALLAS trial compared the combination of palbociclib and adjuvant endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone in 5,698 women with early breast cancer. Patients were categorized according to BMI as underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obese (> 30). The investigators analyzed differences in adverse events, time to early discontinuation of palbociclib, and in time to invasive disease-free survival.

At baseline, of 5,698 patients, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) were of normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) were overweight, and, 1,730 (30.4%) were obese. In patients treated with palbociclib, neutropenia was the primary toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation with rates of 21.1% in normal-weight patients, 14.0% of overweight patients, and 5.9% of obese patients, respectively.

Significantly different rates of all-grade neutropenia were observed in normal weight, overweight, and obese participants with regard to total (88.5%, 85.7% and 74.7%), as well as grade 3 (64.1%, 62.0% and 43.9%) and grade 4 neutropenia (7.0%, 3.6% and 2.0%), respectively. The lower frequency and severity of neutropenia observed in overweight and obese patients was associated with a significantly lower treatment discontinuation rate over time when compared with normal-weight patients (overweight vs. normal weight: HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84; P < .0001, and obese vs. normal weight: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P < .0001). There was, however, despite these observations, no statistically significant improvement in invasive disease survival with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in any weight category (normal weight: HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.63-1.12; overweight: HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.49; and obese: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).

“This is an early analysis, and should be interpreted with caution, especially with regard to disease outcomes. The findings may reduce concerns over hematologic side effects in the overweight and obese. In the future there may be an important impact if it turns out after longer-term follow-up that palbociclib has been underdosed in the overweight and obese. We may need BMI-adapted dose management,” said Dr. Pfeiler, who is currently working on a longer-term follow-up study of the PALLAS group.

The analysis found no significant correlation between weight and occurrence of invasive disease events.

Dr. Pfeiler disclosed honoraria and grants from Pfizer. The study was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

When a patient first presents to a doctor with signs and symptoms of having breast cancer that has metastasized to other parts of the body, the prospects of long-term survival are dim. But now, a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer are generally living longer, compared with women treated in previous years.

Between 2010 and 2018, the overall survival for 5,576 women (99% women) with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer enrolled in this study improved 5.6% each year of the study. The study also showed a 6.4% improvement in breast cancer–specific death rates year over year.

“These highlights coincide with significant therapeutic advances for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer over the past decade. We need to continue our research efforts to identify better treatments for our patients so we can continue to improve the prognosis of these patients,” said study author Jose Pablo Leone, MD, a medical oncologist with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study, which is based on an evaluation of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, found factors associated with shorter survival included older age, Black race, lower income, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases. Long-term survival of more than 5 years was associated with younger age, White race, and higher income, but also having fewer metastatic sites and estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positivity.

“We also found specific factors that were only associated with shorter overall survival, such as the presence of metastases in the brain, liver, or lung. The lack of metastasis in these sites was not associated with longer overall survival. In contrast, a lower number of metastatic sites, regardless of the location of those sites were associated with longer overall survival but not short-term survival,” Dr. Leone said.

A total of 63.3% of patients in the study survived less than 2 years while 37.8% lived 5 years or more, and 26.8% lived longer than 8 years. Factors associated with less than 2 years in overall survival were older age (odds ratio, 3.76), Black race (OR 1.5), nonductal nonlobular (OR, 4.64), brain metastases (OR, 2.95), liver metastases (OR, 1.98), lung metastases (OR, 1.56), ER/PR negativity (OR, 1.74), and lower income (OR, 1.62). Factors associated with longer survival of 5 years or more included younger age (OR, 2.85), White race (OR, 1.7), fewer metastatic organ sites (OR, 2.6), ER/PR positivity (OR, 1.27), and higher income (OR, 3.31).

Dr. Leone said that, while involvement of specific visceral sites (brain, liver, lung) was associated with shorter overall survival, the odds of living longer than 5 years was not associated with those sites. In contrast, the number of sites was associated with longer overall survival, but not shorter overall survival regardless of location. “While fewer number of metastatic sites were associated with higher odds of overall survival greater than 5 years, the number of metastatic sites was not associated with the odds of overall survival of being less than 2 years,” he said.

A limitation of the study included the retrospective nature of the study. “Treatment data are unavailable, so we cannot quantify the impact of various treatments on the odds of survival,” Dr. Leone said.

This study was not funded.

A suspicion from retrospective data has now been confirmed by a prospective clinical trial: Adding panitumumab (Vectibix) to standard chemotherapy in left-sided RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is more effective than adding bevacizumab (Avastin).

Patients treated with panitumumab alongside chemotherapy saw a 16% improvement in overall survival versus those given bevacizumab after a median follow-up of over 5 years.

The overall survival benefit rose to 18% in those with left-sided tumors.

However, there was no difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the small subgroup of patients with right-sided primary tumors.

These findings come from the PARADIGM trial conducted in Japan.

The results were presented during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If gene testing shows that a tumor is RAS wild-type, the choice of initial treatment with panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy is superior ... for those people with left-sided tumors,” said lead researcher Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan, in an ASCO press release.

“It has long been believed that the sequence of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment does not matter as long as patients had access to the drugs at some point, which has now been disproven,” he noted.

Dr. Yoshino added in a press conference about the trial that the results establish “a standard first-line combination regimen for patients with RAS wild-type, left-sided mCRC.”

This is the “longest survival ever reported in a first-line unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer prospective phase 3 trial,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, ASCO Expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

The findings “emphasize the importance of taking into account sidedness, as well as including comprehensive biomarker testing,” she said.

Dr. Eng underlined that this is especially the case for RAS gene status testing, “which is critical for all colorectal cancer patients at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease.”

These results are of particular relevance in the United States, where the choice between an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody for the treatment of mCRC has been an area of “controversy” because of the lack of supporting data.

Panitumumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets EGFR. It was approved in 2006 for use in mCRC by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and also approved in 2014 for use in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2 in codons 12 or 13) mCRC, having previously been shown to be equally effective as cetuximab (another EGFR inhibitor) in this population.

In contrast, bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF receptor. It was approved by the FDA for use in mCRC in 2004 in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy.

Dr. Yoshino explained that around 36% of patients with CRC have metastatic tumors at diagnosis and that adding an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody to chemotherapy improves overall survival in these patients by up to 30 months.

There has been “accumulating” evidence from retrospective studies suggesting that patients with RAS wild-type mCRC whose primary tumor is on the left side, which accounts for approximately 35% of mCRC cases, have a longer survival benefit with an anti-EGFR antibody, he commented.

Despite this, both antibody types continue to be used in these patients, he added.

PARADIGM was the first prospective trial to compare the two antibody types. Patients were randomized to receive either panitumumab or bevacizumab plus the combination chemotherapy regimen modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6).

The trial involved 823 Japanese patients with previously untreated wild-type mCRC with unresectable disease. Most patients had left-sided primary tumors (312 of 400 patients in the panitumumab group, and 292 of 402 patients in the bevacizumab group).  

After a median follow-up of 61 months, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the overall study population, at a hazard ratio of 0.84 (P = .030, with the boundary of significance set at P < .05).

In addition, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the large subgroup of patients with left-sided primary tumors, at 37.9 versus 34.3 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .031).

However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the smaller subgroup of patients with right-sided tumors, at a hazard ratio of 1.09.

Median progression-free survival was no different between the panitumumab and bevacizumab groups, at 13.7 versus 13.2 months in patients with a left-sided tumor and 12.9 versus 12.0 months in the overall cohort.

There was, however, a difference in response rates in left-sided patients between those receiving the two antibodies, at 80.2% with panitumumab versus 68.6% with bevacizumab, and in curative resection rates, at 18.3% and 11.6%, respectively.

These results demonstrate the “superiority of first-line panitumumab versus bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 in the left-sided and overall populations,” Dr. Yoshino concluded.

He also highlighted that the team has undertaken a large-scale biomarker analysis of pre- and posttreatment plasma and tissue samples from patients in the PARADIGM study to identify potential biomarkers of treatment response.

At the plenary session, discussant for this abstract Chiara Cremolini, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology, Pisa (Italy) University Hospital, commented that “location matters” when it comes to mCRC tumors.

Dr. Cremolini pointed out that the separation of the survival curves at 28 months suggests that the 40% of patients with left-sided tumors who survived only up until that time point receive an equal benefit from panitumumab and bevacizumab.

In contrast, the remainder who survived for longer showed better outcomes with panitumumab.

Overall, she said, in her opinion and based on the findings from other studies, the current results support the use of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite stable RAS wild-type and with BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC.

Dr. Cremolini emphasized that patients should be warned that, if they opt for doublet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, they could face a median 3.6-month loss in overall survival, as well as poorer treatment activity.

However, patients with high microsatellite instability should receive immunotherapy up front, she added, while those with BRAF mutations should be given FOLFOX upfront plus bevacizumab, followed by encorafenib plus cetuximab in the case of progression.

Dr. Cremolini ended by noting that there has, as yet, been no prospective comparison of doublet chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR antibody with triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in this population.

The study was funded by Takeda. Dr. Yoshino has reported relationships with Bayer Yakuhin, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Merck, and MSD. Dr. Eng has reported relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

A suspicion from retrospective data has now been confirmed by a prospective clinical trial: Adding panitumumab (Vectibix) to standard chemotherapy in left-sided RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is more effective than adding bevacizumab (Avastin).

Patients treated with panitumumab alongside chemotherapy saw a 16% improvement in overall survival versus those given bevacizumab after a median follow-up of over 5 years.

The overall survival benefit rose to 18% in those with left-sided tumors.

However, there was no difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the small subgroup of patients with right-sided primary tumors.

These findings come from the PARADIGM trial conducted in Japan.

The results were presented during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If gene testing shows that a tumor is RAS wild-type, the choice of initial treatment with panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy is superior ... for those people with left-sided tumors,” said lead researcher Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan, in an ASCO press release.

“It has long been believed that the sequence of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment does not matter as long as patients had access to the drugs at some point, which has now been disproven,” he noted.

Dr. Yoshino added in a press conference about the trial that the results establish “a standard first-line combination regimen for patients with RAS wild-type, left-sided mCRC.”

This is the “longest survival ever reported in a first-line unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer prospective phase 3 trial,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, ASCO Expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

The findings “emphasize the importance of taking into account sidedness, as well as including comprehensive biomarker testing,” she said.

Dr. Eng underlined that this is especially the case for RAS gene status testing, “which is critical for all colorectal cancer patients at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease.”

These results are of particular relevance in the United States, where the choice between an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody for the treatment of mCRC has been an area of “controversy” because of the lack of supporting data.

Panitumumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets EGFR. It was approved in 2006 for use in mCRC by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and also approved in 2014 for use in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2 in codons 12 or 13) mCRC, having previously been shown to be equally effective as cetuximab (another EGFR inhibitor) in this population.

In contrast, bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF receptor. It was approved by the FDA for use in mCRC in 2004 in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy.

Dr. Yoshino explained that around 36% of patients with CRC have metastatic tumors at diagnosis and that adding an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody to chemotherapy improves overall survival in these patients by up to 30 months.

There has been “accumulating” evidence from retrospective studies suggesting that patients with RAS wild-type mCRC whose primary tumor is on the left side, which accounts for approximately 35% of mCRC cases, have a longer survival benefit with an anti-EGFR antibody, he commented.

Despite this, both antibody types continue to be used in these patients, he added.

PARADIGM was the first prospective trial to compare the two antibody types. Patients were randomized to receive either panitumumab or bevacizumab plus the combination chemotherapy regimen modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6).

The trial involved 823 Japanese patients with previously untreated wild-type mCRC with unresectable disease. Most patients had left-sided primary tumors (312 of 400 patients in the panitumumab group, and 292 of 402 patients in the bevacizumab group).  

After a median follow-up of 61 months, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the overall study population, at a hazard ratio of 0.84 (P = .030, with the boundary of significance set at P < .05).

In addition, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the large subgroup of patients with left-sided primary tumors, at 37.9 versus 34.3 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .031).

However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the smaller subgroup of patients with right-sided tumors, at a hazard ratio of 1.09.

Median progression-free survival was no different between the panitumumab and bevacizumab groups, at 13.7 versus 13.2 months in patients with a left-sided tumor and 12.9 versus 12.0 months in the overall cohort.

There was, however, a difference in response rates in left-sided patients between those receiving the two antibodies, at 80.2% with panitumumab versus 68.6% with bevacizumab, and in curative resection rates, at 18.3% and 11.6%, respectively.

These results demonstrate the “superiority of first-line panitumumab versus bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 in the left-sided and overall populations,” Dr. Yoshino concluded.

He also highlighted that the team has undertaken a large-scale biomarker analysis of pre- and posttreatment plasma and tissue samples from patients in the PARADIGM study to identify potential biomarkers of treatment response.

At the plenary session, discussant for this abstract Chiara Cremolini, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology, Pisa (Italy) University Hospital, commented that “location matters” when it comes to mCRC tumors.

Dr. Cremolini pointed out that the separation of the survival curves at 28 months suggests that the 40% of patients with left-sided tumors who survived only up until that time point receive an equal benefit from panitumumab and bevacizumab.

In contrast, the remainder who survived for longer showed better outcomes with panitumumab.

Overall, she said, in her opinion and based on the findings from other studies, the current results support the use of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite stable RAS wild-type and with BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC.

Dr. Cremolini emphasized that patients should be warned that, if they opt for doublet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, they could face a median 3.6-month loss in overall survival, as well as poorer treatment activity.

However, patients with high microsatellite instability should receive immunotherapy up front, she added, while those with BRAF mutations should be given FOLFOX upfront plus bevacizumab, followed by encorafenib plus cetuximab in the case of progression.

Dr. Cremolini ended by noting that there has, as yet, been no prospective comparison of doublet chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR antibody with triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in this population.

The study was funded by Takeda. Dr. Yoshino has reported relationships with Bayer Yakuhin, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Merck, and MSD. Dr. Eng has reported relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

A suspicion from retrospective data has now been confirmed by a prospective clinical trial: Adding panitumumab (Vectibix) to standard chemotherapy in left-sided RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is more effective than adding bevacizumab (Avastin).

Patients treated with panitumumab alongside chemotherapy saw a 16% improvement in overall survival versus those given bevacizumab after a median follow-up of over 5 years.

The overall survival benefit rose to 18% in those with left-sided tumors.

However, there was no difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the small subgroup of patients with right-sided primary tumors.

These findings come from the PARADIGM trial conducted in Japan.

The results were presented during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“If gene testing shows that a tumor is RAS wild-type, the choice of initial treatment with panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy is superior ... for those people with left-sided tumors,” said lead researcher Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan, in an ASCO press release.

“It has long been believed that the sequence of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment does not matter as long as patients had access to the drugs at some point, which has now been disproven,” he noted.

Dr. Yoshino added in a press conference about the trial that the results establish “a standard first-line combination regimen for patients with RAS wild-type, left-sided mCRC.”

This is the “longest survival ever reported in a first-line unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer prospective phase 3 trial,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, ASCO Expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

The findings “emphasize the importance of taking into account sidedness, as well as including comprehensive biomarker testing,” she said.

Dr. Eng underlined that this is especially the case for RAS gene status testing, “which is critical for all colorectal cancer patients at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease.”

These results are of particular relevance in the United States, where the choice between an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody for the treatment of mCRC has been an area of “controversy” because of the lack of supporting data.

Panitumumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets EGFR. It was approved in 2006 for use in mCRC by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and also approved in 2014 for use in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2 in codons 12 or 13) mCRC, having previously been shown to be equally effective as cetuximab (another EGFR inhibitor) in this population.

In contrast, bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF receptor. It was approved by the FDA for use in mCRC in 2004 in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy.

Dr. Yoshino explained that around 36% of patients with CRC have metastatic tumors at diagnosis and that adding an anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF antibody to chemotherapy improves overall survival in these patients by up to 30 months.

There has been “accumulating” evidence from retrospective studies suggesting that patients with RAS wild-type mCRC whose primary tumor is on the left side, which accounts for approximately 35% of mCRC cases, have a longer survival benefit with an anti-EGFR antibody, he commented.

Despite this, both antibody types continue to be used in these patients, he added.

PARADIGM was the first prospective trial to compare the two antibody types. Patients were randomized to receive either panitumumab or bevacizumab plus the combination chemotherapy regimen modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6).

The trial involved 823 Japanese patients with previously untreated wild-type mCRC with unresectable disease. Most patients had left-sided primary tumors (312 of 400 patients in the panitumumab group, and 292 of 402 patients in the bevacizumab group).  

After a median follow-up of 61 months, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the overall study population, at a hazard ratio of 0.84 (P = .030, with the boundary of significance set at P < .05).

In addition, panitumumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival in the large subgroup of patients with left-sided primary tumors, at 37.9 versus 34.3 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .031).

However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups in the smaller subgroup of patients with right-sided tumors, at a hazard ratio of 1.09.

Median progression-free survival was no different between the panitumumab and bevacizumab groups, at 13.7 versus 13.2 months in patients with a left-sided tumor and 12.9 versus 12.0 months in the overall cohort.

There was, however, a difference in response rates in left-sided patients between those receiving the two antibodies, at 80.2% with panitumumab versus 68.6% with bevacizumab, and in curative resection rates, at 18.3% and 11.6%, respectively.

These results demonstrate the “superiority of first-line panitumumab versus bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 in the left-sided and overall populations,” Dr. Yoshino concluded.

He also highlighted that the team has undertaken a large-scale biomarker analysis of pre- and posttreatment plasma and tissue samples from patients in the PARADIGM study to identify potential biomarkers of treatment response.

At the plenary session, discussant for this abstract Chiara Cremolini, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology, Pisa (Italy) University Hospital, commented that “location matters” when it comes to mCRC tumors.

Dr. Cremolini pointed out that the separation of the survival curves at 28 months suggests that the 40% of patients with left-sided tumors who survived only up until that time point receive an equal benefit from panitumumab and bevacizumab.

In contrast, the remainder who survived for longer showed better outcomes with panitumumab.

Overall, she said, in her opinion and based on the findings from other studies, the current results support the use of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite stable RAS wild-type and with BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC.

Dr. Cremolini emphasized that patients should be warned that, if they opt for doublet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, they could face a median 3.6-month loss in overall survival, as well as poorer treatment activity.

However, patients with high microsatellite instability should receive immunotherapy up front, she added, while those with BRAF mutations should be given FOLFOX upfront plus bevacizumab, followed by encorafenib plus cetuximab in the case of progression.

Dr. Cremolini ended by noting that there has, as yet, been no prospective comparison of doublet chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR antibody with triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in this population.

The study was funded by Takeda. Dr. Yoshino has reported relationships with Bayer Yakuhin, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Merck, and MSD. Dr. Eng has reported relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

CHICAGO -- High-dose ifosfamide has shown superior survival benefit over three other chemotherapy regimens for patients with recurring or refractory primary Ewing sarcoma (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.

This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.

The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.

Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.

Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.

This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.

Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.

At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.

Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.  

Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.   

High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.

Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.

As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.

Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”

The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.

Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
 

Important global collaboration

Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”

“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.

“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.

Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release. 

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

CHICAGO -- High-dose ifosfamide has shown superior survival benefit over three other chemotherapy regimens for patients with recurring or refractory primary Ewing sarcoma (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.

This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.

The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.

Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.

Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.

This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.

Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.

At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.

Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.  

Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.   

High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.

Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.

As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.

Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”

The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.

Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
 

Important global collaboration

Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”

“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.

“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.

Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release. 

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

CHICAGO -- High-dose ifosfamide has shown superior survival benefit over three other chemotherapy regimens for patients with recurring or refractory primary Ewing sarcoma (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.

This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.

The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.

Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.

Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.

This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.

Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.

At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.

Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.  

Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.   

High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.

Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.

As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.

Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”

The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.

Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
 

Important global collaboration

Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”

“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.

“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.

Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release. 

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The risk of laser or intense-pulsed light–induced vitiligo from treating vitiligo with either modality appears to be low, but caution is recommended until further studies are carried out.

Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.

Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.

For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.

For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.

Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.

“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.

“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”

Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The risk of laser or intense-pulsed light–induced vitiligo from treating vitiligo with either modality appears to be low, but caution is recommended until further studies are carried out.

Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.

Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.

For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.

For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.

Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.

“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.

“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”

Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The risk of laser or intense-pulsed light–induced vitiligo from treating vitiligo with either modality appears to be low, but caution is recommended until further studies are carried out.

Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.

Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.

For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.

For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.

Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.

“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.

“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”

Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.