User login
ASH 2023: Equity, Sickle Cell, and Real-Life Outcomes
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
AT ASH 2023
COVID livers are safe for transplant
, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.
Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”
The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.
After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.
“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”
Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.
“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”
Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.
In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.
“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.
He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.
“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”
These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.
“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”
The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.
Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”
The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.
After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.
“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”
Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.
“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”
Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.
In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.
“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.
He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.
“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”
These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.
“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”
The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.
Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”
The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.
After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.
“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”
Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.
“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”
Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.
In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.
“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.
He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.
“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”
These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.
“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”
The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.
AT THE LIVER MEETING
More than one-third of adults in the US could have NAFLD by 2050
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.
“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”
To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.
In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.
By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.
Next, they turned their model toward the future.
It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.
The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.
“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”
During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”
Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.
“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”
Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.
“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.
In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.
“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.
“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”
To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.
In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.
By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.
Next, they turned their model toward the future.
It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.
The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.
“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”
During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”
Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.
“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”
Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.
“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.
In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.
“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.
“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”
To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.
In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.
By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.
Next, they turned their model toward the future.
It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.
The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.
“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”
During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”
Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.
“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”
Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.
“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.
In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.
“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
AT THE LIVER MEETING
Alternative antirejection regimen is efficacious in pediatric heart transplant
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
Study challenges everolimus boxed warning
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.
Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.
Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.
In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection
The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m2 every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).
In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).
The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.
Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.
On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.
In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).
Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).
Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
Study supports safety of everolimus regimen
The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.
However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.
“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.
Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.
He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.
Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.
The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.
Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,
Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.
FROM AHA 2023
Trial shows utility of small-volume blood collection tubes
A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.
“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.
The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.
The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.
“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”
The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.
Study results
While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay.
Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:
- A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
- An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).
In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).
“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”
First clinical trial for small tubes
Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”
She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”
The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.
Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.
“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”
The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.
A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.
“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.
The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.
The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.
“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”
The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.
Study results
While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay.
Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:
- A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
- An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).
In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).
“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”
First clinical trial for small tubes
Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”
She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”
The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.
Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.
“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”
The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.
A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.
“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.
The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.
The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.
“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”
The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.
Study results
While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay.
Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:
- A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
- An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).
In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).
“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”
First clinical trial for small tubes
Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”
She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”
The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.
Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.
“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”
The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.
FROM JAMA
DLBCL treatment options: CAR T outperforms ASCT
NEW YORK – according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).
“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.
Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.
At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.
Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.
“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.
NEW YORK – according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).
“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.
Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.
At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.
Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.
“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.
NEW YORK – according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).
“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.
Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.
At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.
Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.
“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.
Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.
AT LLM CONGRESS 2023
Frontline myeloma treatments: ASCT vs. CAR T
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.
Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.
Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.
Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.
Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.
Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.
“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.
A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”
Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.
AT LLM CONGRESS 2023
History of heart transplant tied to worse pregnancy outcome
TOPLINE:
than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
- The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
- Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
- In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
- HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
- Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.
IN PRACTICE:
The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.
LIMITATIONS:
Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
- The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
- Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
- In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
- HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
- Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.
IN PRACTICE:
The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.
LIMITATIONS:
Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
than do other pregnant women, results of a large study with a nationwide sample suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 2010-2020 information from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), a large, all-payer administrative dataset that allows for tracking of patient hospital readmissions in the same U.S. state within the same calendar year and includes patient demographics, hospital characteristics, diagnosis and procedure codes (including for cardiac transplants), length of stay, and discharge disposition.
- The primary outcome was nontransfusion SMM which, among other conditions, included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, amniotic fluid embolism, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and heart failure/arrest, during the delivery hospitalization.
- Additional outcomes included rates of all SMMs (including transfusion), a composite cardiovascular SMM (cSMM) outcome that included acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, cardioversion, and acute heart failure, preterm birth, and readmission rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- From 2010 to 2020, there were 19,399,521 hospital deliveries, of which, 105 were in HT recipients.
- In unadjusted comparisons, rates of all outcomes were higher in HT, compared with non-HT delivery hospitalizations, and after adjusting for age, demographic and facility characteristics, comorbid conditions, and calendar year, HT recipients continued to have higher odds of adverse maternal outcomes. For example, HT recipients had higher rates of nontransfusion SMM (adjusted odds ratio, 28.12; 95% confidence interval, 15.65-50.53), all SMM (aOR, 15.73; 95% CI, 9.17-27.00), cSMM (aOR, 37.7; 95% CI, 17.39-82.01), and preterm birth (aOR, 7.15; 95%, CI 4.75-10.77).
- HT recipients also had longer hospital stays and higher rates of cesarean delivery, although the authors noted that it’s unclear whether this increase was caused by the HT or complications of pregnancy because data were unavailable regarding indication for cesareans.
- Patients with HT were also at increased risk for hospital readmission within the first year after delivery, particularly within the first 6 months, including for HT-related complications, a finding that supports guidelines recommending an initial postpartum visit within 7-14 days of discharge for patients with cardiac conditions, write the authors.
IN PRACTICE:
The findings demonstrate the importance of counseling HT patients at early gestational ages “to provide information about anticipated risks in pregnancy and the postpartum period to allow patients the opportunity to make informed choices regarding their reproductive options,” the authors conclude.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Amanda M. Craig, MD, division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. It was published online in JACC Heart Failure.
LIMITATIONS:
Relying on diagnosis and procedure codes in administrative datasets like NRD may result in underestimation of outcomes. In this study, outcomes were limited to delivery hospitalizations, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications or fail to include pregnancies that didn’t end in a delivery, including pregnancy terminations or spontaneous abortions. Information related to race, ethnicity, hospital regions, and cause of death are not captured in the NRD dataset.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More data support heart donation after circulatory death
TOPLINE:
There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
- In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
- The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.
TAKEAWAY:
- (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
- There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
- The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
- There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.
In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.
“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
- In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
- The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.
TAKEAWAY:
- (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
- There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
- The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
- There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.
In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.
“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
- In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
- The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.
TAKEAWAY:
- (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
- There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
- The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
- There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.
In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.
“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dispelling clinicians’ misconceptions about sickle cell disease
Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.
Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.
To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.
And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.
However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
Myths and truths
To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:
Pain level
Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.
Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.
“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”
Blacks only
Myth: SCD only affects Black people.
Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.
“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.
In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”
Parental link
Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.
Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”
Effects beyond pain
Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.
Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”
“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
Consult guidelines
One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.
Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.
Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.
“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.
He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”
Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.
Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.
To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.
And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.
However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
Myths and truths
To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:
Pain level
Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.
Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.
“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”
Blacks only
Myth: SCD only affects Black people.
Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.
“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.
In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”
Parental link
Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.
Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”
Effects beyond pain
Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.
Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”
“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
Consult guidelines
One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.
Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.
Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.
“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.
He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”
Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.
Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.
To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.
And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.
However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
Myths and truths
To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:
Pain level
Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.
Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.
“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”
Blacks only
Myth: SCD only affects Black people.
Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.
“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.
In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”
Parental link
Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.
Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”
Effects beyond pain
Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.
Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”
“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
Consult guidelines
One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.
Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.
Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.
“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.
He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”
Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
