User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Novel Agent Curbs Alzheimer’s-Related Agitation
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Genetic Signatures May Predict CAR T Responders
“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”
The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.
Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.
In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”
Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.
Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.
After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.
The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”
Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10-14).
The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.
“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.
Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.
Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.
Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”
“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.
“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”
Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.
“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.”
Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.
“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.
“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”
Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.
“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”
The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.
Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.
In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”
Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.
Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.
After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.
The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”
Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10-14).
The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.
“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.
Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.
Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.
Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”
“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.
“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”
Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.
“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.”
Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.
“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.
“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”
Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.
“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”
The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.
Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.
In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”
Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.
Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.
After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.
The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”
Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10-14).
The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.
“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.
Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.
Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.
Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”
“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.
“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”
Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.
“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.”
Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.
“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.
“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”
Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.
FROM AACR 2024
Avoidance Predicts Worse Long-term Outcomes From Intensive OCD Treatment
BOSTON — , a new analysis shows.
Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later.
“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.”
The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
The Avoidance Question
Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said.
Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.
The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients.
B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.
Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.
Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?”
Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
Long-Term Outcomes
Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients.
But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).
Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.
Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same.
Relapse Prevention
“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs.
One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.
“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.
He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item.
Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.
Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.
A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study.
Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added.
Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — , a new analysis shows.
Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later.
“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.”
The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
The Avoidance Question
Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said.
Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.
The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients.
B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.
Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.
Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?”
Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
Long-Term Outcomes
Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients.
But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).
Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.
Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same.
Relapse Prevention
“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs.
One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.
“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.
He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item.
Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.
Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.
A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study.
Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added.
Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — , a new analysis shows.
Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later.
“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.”
The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
The Avoidance Question
Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said.
Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.
The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients.
B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.
Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.
Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?”
Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
Long-Term Outcomes
Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients.
But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).
Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.
Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same.
Relapse Prevention
“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said.
Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs.
One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.
“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.
He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item.
Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.
Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.
A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study.
Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added.
Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADAA 2024
Is Osimertinib Better Alone or With Chemotherapy in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer?
SAN DIEGO —
That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.
Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.
“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.
The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.
In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).
In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).
The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.
“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.
Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.
Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.
The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.
It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO —
That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.
Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.
“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.
The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.
In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).
In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).
The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.
“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.
Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.
Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.
The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.
It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO —
That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.
Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.
“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.
The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.
In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).
In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).
The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.
“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.
Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.
Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.
The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.
It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR
Approved Therapy for ALS Is Withdrawn When New Study Shows No Benefit
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER —
As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials
In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).
The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.
In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.
For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.
Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.
As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated
The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.
When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.
An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.
Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
‘Unfortunate’ Results
Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.
Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.
In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.
“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.
However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.
“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”
Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Positive Results From Phase 2 Trial Support Potential New Option for Control of CIDP
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
DENVER — , according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.
ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date
In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.
After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.
The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,
The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.
The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.
There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial
For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.
By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.
When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.
In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.
On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated
Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.
“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.
The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.
There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.
“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.
Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2024
Semaglutide Trial for Knee Osteoarthritis Shows Improvements in Pain, Physical Function
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024 World Congress.
From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.
“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.
Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Not Approved in OA
Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.
“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.
“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.
“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
Previous Work
The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.
Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.
“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.
“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
STEP 9 Study Design
No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.
STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.
In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.
A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.
Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.
Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
Other Findings
In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.
“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.
Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.
“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.
Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.
The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OARSI 2024
Has Immunotherapy Found Its Place in Pancreatic Cancer?
The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.
In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.
Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.
Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.
Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.
Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.
Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.
Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.
The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.
Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.
“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”
Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”
Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”
For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?
The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.
A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.
In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.
Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.
Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.
Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.
Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.
Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.
Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.
The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.
Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.
“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”
Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”
Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”
For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?
The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.
A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.
In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.
Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.
Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.
Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.
Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.
Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.
Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.
The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.
Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.
“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”
Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”
Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”
For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?
The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.
A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2024
Tiny Doses of Metabolically Armed CAR T Show Benefits
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
“Our study showed a manageable safety profile in r/r DLBCL/B-ALL, with promising breakthrough efficacy of a 100% complete remission in all dose groups,” said first author Jingjing Ren, MD, PhD, associate director of research and development with Leman Biotech in Shenzhen, China. Dr. Ren presented these findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting held in San Diego.
While CD19 CAR T-cell therapy has been transformative in the treatment of relapsed B -cell hematological malignancies in recent years, more than half of patients relapse within a year because of inadequate CAR T persistence.
To address the problem, Dr. Ren and her colleagues developed a metabolically armed, interleukin (IL)-10-expressing CAR T-cell product called Meta10-19 for the treatment patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL.
According to the authors, the IL-10-expressing CAR T-cells trigger “stem-like memory responses” in various lymphoid organs, which prompt a “robust tumor eradication and durable protection,” and hence, better persistence.
Preclinical studies in mice showed the Meta10-19 CAR T-cells exhibited substantially higher expansion of approximately 100-fold compared with a control CD19 CAR-T product.
Therefore, “we dramatically reduced the dose to approximately 1% to 5% of commercial products for the IL-10-expressing CD19 CAR-T for patients,” coauthor Yugang Guo, PhD, cofounder and president of Leman Biotech said in an interview.
For the ongoing, open-label clinical trial, 12 adult patients with r/r DLBCL or r/r B-ALL and confirmed CD19 expression at a hospital center in China were enrolled between December 2022 and November 2023 and treated in three cohorts, receiving doses that corresponded to 1%, 2.5%, or 5% of the doses of other commercialized CAR-T infusion products.
All patients also underwent lympho-depleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine prior to the CAR T-cell infusion.
Six patients had r/r DLBCL and the other six had r/r B-ALL; their median age was 47 and their median time since diagnosis was 1 year.
In the single-arm, intent-to-treat analysis, the treatment induced a complete remission in all 12 patients, as evaluated by PET-CT scan, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or minimal residual disease assessment of bone marrow.
The median time to best response was 1 month (range 0.5 to 2.2 months).
There were no cases of severe cytokine storm syndrome or neurotoxicity, which are among key limitations with current commercial CAR-T products.
All of the patients continued to have a complete remission at 3 months. Two of the 12 patients, both with B-ALL, experienced relapses, one after 4.7 months and the other at 8 months.
The authors reported that the first treated patient had maintained continuous remission as of 9 months.
In comparison with the much higher full doses of commercial CD19 CAR-T products, only about 50% of patients with DLBCL and 70% of B-ALL patients have been shown to achieve CR at 3 months, the authors reported.
“Our IL-10 expressing CAR-T sustains CR at 3 months post infusion in the context of not following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, which suggests IL-10 expressing CAR-T is more resistant to relapse,” Dr. Guo said.
In terms of safety, six patients with DLBCL and four with B-ALL experienced grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and two patients with B-ALL developed grade 2 CRS. There were no grade 3 or 4 CRS cases.
One patient with B-ALL developed grade 3 ICANS.
Grade 3-4 cytopenias occurred in most patients, but all were limited to no later than 90 days.
“We observed reduced CRS, with no level 3 or 4, or ICANS,” Dr. Guo said. “There was increased cytopenia, but still manageable, compared with commercial products.”
Of note, the Meta10-19 cells showed efficacy in the extremely low infusion doses even among patients with bulky mass (≥ 7.5 cm) of DLBCL, which is associated with an increased risk of relapse.
One patient had primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), a rare form of DLBCL that is known to have the worst prognosis of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Due to the unique nature of CNS primary tumors, the CAR T-cell infusion dose was further reduced to 1% of the standard dose for the patient.
The patient maintained complete remission for more than 8 months before relapsing in periphery blood, but not in the CNS, Dr. Guo noted.
“Luckily, this relapse has been easily controlled by chemotherapy, and the patient is maintaining complete remission again now,” Dr. Guo said.
Mechanisms?
Dr. Guo noted that the mechanism believed to explain the improvements despite such low doses is that “IL-10-expressing CAR-T exhibits enhanced proliferation, cytotoxicity, and stem-like antitumor memory due to enhanced metabolic activities of oxidative phosphorylation.”
The authors noted that a key major factor limiting accessibility to CAR-T therapies is the lengthy production cycle and high costs; however, the “extremely low doses of 1% to 5% can significantly reduce the production cycle and cost of CAR T-cell therapies, increasing accessibility,” they wrote in a press statement.
Currently, more than 20 patients have achieved a CR overall, and studies with a larger cohort and longer follow-up are ongoing, Dr. Guo reported.
The research team plans to launch further clinical investigation this year into patients with solid tumors.
Commenting on the study, Hongbo Chi, PhD, the Robert G. Webster Endowed Chair in Immunology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, noted that, based on the abstract, “the effects are quite remarkable, considering the therapeutic efficacy observed even at the low dose.
“Results from more patients are needed to fully validate these findings, but the results to date are very encouraging,” he said.
The study was sponsored by Leman Biotech. Dr. Chi had no disclosures to report.
FROM AACR 2024
How Can Kidney Cancer Patients Benefit From New Combination Therapy?
Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?
For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.
For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.
Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.
Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.
The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.
Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?
VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.
In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.
The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).
Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.
Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.
However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.
Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.
For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?
“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.
However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.
Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.
Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.
Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.
Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?
For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.
For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.
Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.
Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.
The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.
Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?
VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.
In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.
The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).
Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.
Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.
However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.
Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.
For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?
“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.
However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.
Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.
Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.
Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.
Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?
For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.
For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.
Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.
Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.
The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.
Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?
VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.
In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.
The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).
Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.
Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.
However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.
Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.
For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.
For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?
“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.
However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.
Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.
Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.
Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.
FROM NCCN 2024