Jim Kling

In a real-world study of asthma patients, treatment with biologics following an exacerbation was associated with better health care utilization outcomes.

The data fill a gap, according to Sushan Gupta, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “There’s some ample real-world data that shows that biologics reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbation, but the data regarding what happens after an exacerbation is still lacking, especially real-world data,” said Dr. Gupta, who is a resident at Carle Foundation Hospital in Champaign, Ill.

The findings were encouraging. “Patients with severe asthma on biologics fare well even after an exacerbation event, which includes a reduced incidence of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. We did not have any patient in the biologic group that required intubation, so that is pretty significant as compared to other patients who did not receive biologics,” said Dr. Gupta.

The results weren’t surprising, but underscore the benefits of biologics, according to Brittany Duchene, MD, who moderated the session where the results were presented. “I think it reinforced that they’re really good drugs,” said Dr. Duchene, who is a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

Although the study was retrospective, it suggests that the threshold for initiating biologics could potentially be lowered for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite adequate use of inhalers, according to Dr. Gupta. “Should that threshold be lower, and would that improve the overall morbidity and eventually the health care cost of utilization? Our study does not prove any of those data, but moving forward that data will also come out.”

Dr. Duchene noted that the accumulating scientific and clinical data for biologics is “really, really strong.” She also speculated that biologics could be used increasingly in the acute setting, which she admitted is a controversial topic. “I think there’s going to be a lot more push to early initiation, and you can see from the [new] study that it decreased a lot of hospitalizations.”

Dr. Gupta emphasized the need for prospective studies, and Dr. Duchene agreed that any such change would need to be patient centric, considering the diversity of available biologics. “It depends what their true issue is. The broader the biologic [mechanism of action], probably the more success you’ll have. I’ve found there’s not a pure allergic or a pure eosinophilic asthma patient. They’re usually more a combination.”

Some key questions remain about biologics treatment, especially in the long term. These include when a patient should be switched from one biologic to another, and whether biologic treatment should be continued over the patient’s lifetime and potential long-term side effects. “I think that data is still evolving and will come to us with time,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 316 asthma patients treated with biologics and 9,645 treated with nonbiologic therapy between February 2018 and February 2023 at a tertiary care teaching hospital in the Midwest. There was a higher proportion of females in the biologics (69.7%) and nonbiologics groups (63.8%, P = .032), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of Whites in the biologics and nonbiologics groups (78.2% vs. 74.3%, P = .103).

The lack of a difference in racial groups was a surprise, according to Dr. Duchene, especially since other studies have noted disparities in biologic therapy among asthma patients.

Among the biologics group, 0.9% were hospitalized during the study period, compared with 6.5% of the nonbiologics group (P = .00006). They also had fewer ICU visits (0.3% vs. 1.8%; P = .04).

Dr. Gupta’s team attempted to subdivide the data by individual biologic, but there was no statistical significance in outcomes between biologics, perhaps because of the relatively small sample size.

Dr. Gupta noted that his group’s results are generally similar to other studies, including a U.S. study that found a decrease in exacerbation rates after staring or switching biologics and a slightly higher prevalence of biologics use among White patients (77% of biologic users versus 71% of nonbiologics users). A study in southwestern England found fewer ED visits and hospitalizations among patients on biologics.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

In a real-world study of asthma patients, treatment with biologics following an exacerbation was associated with better health care utilization outcomes.

The data fill a gap, according to Sushan Gupta, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “There’s some ample real-world data that shows that biologics reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbation, but the data regarding what happens after an exacerbation is still lacking, especially real-world data,” said Dr. Gupta, who is a resident at Carle Foundation Hospital in Champaign, Ill.

The findings were encouraging. “Patients with severe asthma on biologics fare well even after an exacerbation event, which includes a reduced incidence of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. We did not have any patient in the biologic group that required intubation, so that is pretty significant as compared to other patients who did not receive biologics,” said Dr. Gupta.

The results weren’t surprising, but underscore the benefits of biologics, according to Brittany Duchene, MD, who moderated the session where the results were presented. “I think it reinforced that they’re really good drugs,” said Dr. Duchene, who is a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

Although the study was retrospective, it suggests that the threshold for initiating biologics could potentially be lowered for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite adequate use of inhalers, according to Dr. Gupta. “Should that threshold be lower, and would that improve the overall morbidity and eventually the health care cost of utilization? Our study does not prove any of those data, but moving forward that data will also come out.”

Dr. Duchene noted that the accumulating scientific and clinical data for biologics is “really, really strong.” She also speculated that biologics could be used increasingly in the acute setting, which she admitted is a controversial topic. “I think there’s going to be a lot more push to early initiation, and you can see from the [new] study that it decreased a lot of hospitalizations.”

Dr. Gupta emphasized the need for prospective studies, and Dr. Duchene agreed that any such change would need to be patient centric, considering the diversity of available biologics. “It depends what their true issue is. The broader the biologic [mechanism of action], probably the more success you’ll have. I’ve found there’s not a pure allergic or a pure eosinophilic asthma patient. They’re usually more a combination.”

Some key questions remain about biologics treatment, especially in the long term. These include when a patient should be switched from one biologic to another, and whether biologic treatment should be continued over the patient’s lifetime and potential long-term side effects. “I think that data is still evolving and will come to us with time,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 316 asthma patients treated with biologics and 9,645 treated with nonbiologic therapy between February 2018 and February 2023 at a tertiary care teaching hospital in the Midwest. There was a higher proportion of females in the biologics (69.7%) and nonbiologics groups (63.8%, P = .032), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of Whites in the biologics and nonbiologics groups (78.2% vs. 74.3%, P = .103).

The lack of a difference in racial groups was a surprise, according to Dr. Duchene, especially since other studies have noted disparities in biologic therapy among asthma patients.

Among the biologics group, 0.9% were hospitalized during the study period, compared with 6.5% of the nonbiologics group (P = .00006). They also had fewer ICU visits (0.3% vs. 1.8%; P = .04).

Dr. Gupta’s team attempted to subdivide the data by individual biologic, but there was no statistical significance in outcomes between biologics, perhaps because of the relatively small sample size.

Dr. Gupta noted that his group’s results are generally similar to other studies, including a U.S. study that found a decrease in exacerbation rates after staring or switching biologics and a slightly higher prevalence of biologics use among White patients (77% of biologic users versus 71% of nonbiologics users). A study in southwestern England found fewer ED visits and hospitalizations among patients on biologics.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

In a real-world study of asthma patients, treatment with biologics following an exacerbation was associated with better health care utilization outcomes.

The data fill a gap, according to Sushan Gupta, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “There’s some ample real-world data that shows that biologics reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbation, but the data regarding what happens after an exacerbation is still lacking, especially real-world data,” said Dr. Gupta, who is a resident at Carle Foundation Hospital in Champaign, Ill.

The findings were encouraging. “Patients with severe asthma on biologics fare well even after an exacerbation event, which includes a reduced incidence of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. We did not have any patient in the biologic group that required intubation, so that is pretty significant as compared to other patients who did not receive biologics,” said Dr. Gupta.

The results weren’t surprising, but underscore the benefits of biologics, according to Brittany Duchene, MD, who moderated the session where the results were presented. “I think it reinforced that they’re really good drugs,” said Dr. Duchene, who is a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

Although the study was retrospective, it suggests that the threshold for initiating biologics could potentially be lowered for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite adequate use of inhalers, according to Dr. Gupta. “Should that threshold be lower, and would that improve the overall morbidity and eventually the health care cost of utilization? Our study does not prove any of those data, but moving forward that data will also come out.”

Dr. Duchene noted that the accumulating scientific and clinical data for biologics is “really, really strong.” She also speculated that biologics could be used increasingly in the acute setting, which she admitted is a controversial topic. “I think there’s going to be a lot more push to early initiation, and you can see from the [new] study that it decreased a lot of hospitalizations.”

Dr. Gupta emphasized the need for prospective studies, and Dr. Duchene agreed that any such change would need to be patient centric, considering the diversity of available biologics. “It depends what their true issue is. The broader the biologic [mechanism of action], probably the more success you’ll have. I’ve found there’s not a pure allergic or a pure eosinophilic asthma patient. They’re usually more a combination.”

Some key questions remain about biologics treatment, especially in the long term. These include when a patient should be switched from one biologic to another, and whether biologic treatment should be continued over the patient’s lifetime and potential long-term side effects. “I think that data is still evolving and will come to us with time,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 316 asthma patients treated with biologics and 9,645 treated with nonbiologic therapy between February 2018 and February 2023 at a tertiary care teaching hospital in the Midwest. There was a higher proportion of females in the biologics (69.7%) and nonbiologics groups (63.8%, P = .032), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of Whites in the biologics and nonbiologics groups (78.2% vs. 74.3%, P = .103).

The lack of a difference in racial groups was a surprise, according to Dr. Duchene, especially since other studies have noted disparities in biologic therapy among asthma patients.

Among the biologics group, 0.9% were hospitalized during the study period, compared with 6.5% of the nonbiologics group (P = .00006). They also had fewer ICU visits (0.3% vs. 1.8%; P = .04).

Dr. Gupta’s team attempted to subdivide the data by individual biologic, but there was no statistical significance in outcomes between biologics, perhaps because of the relatively small sample size.

Dr. Gupta noted that his group’s results are generally similar to other studies, including a U.S. study that found a decrease in exacerbation rates after staring or switching biologics and a slightly higher prevalence of biologics use among White patients (77% of biologic users versus 71% of nonbiologics users). A study in southwestern England found fewer ED visits and hospitalizations among patients on biologics.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

Pleural mesothelioma is generally treated by extended pleurectomy decortication, and there has been little improvement in systemic treatment of early-stage, resectable mesothelioma, which has led to the recommendations of maximum cytoreduction. U.S. and European guidelines, as well as an international consensus statement, support this approach, but it has never been tested in a randomized, controlled trial.

Now it has, and the result is surprising: Surgery led to reduced survival and more serious adverse events, compared with chemotherapy alone. The conclusion was uncomfortable for Eric Lim, MD, who presented the results of the MARS2 trial at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. “Ladies and gentlemen, as a surgeon standing here, you have no idea how much it pains me to conclude that extended pleurectomy decortication, an operation that we have been offering for over 70 years, has been associated with a higher risk of death, more serious complications, poorer quality of life, and higher costs, compared to mesothelioma patients who were randomized to chemotherapy alone,” said Dr. Lim of the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, during his presentation.

Although the line drew laughter and applause from the audience, Paula Ugalde Figueroa, MD, who served as a discussant, raised some concerns about the study. Disease presence in one hemithorax was assessed only by chest CT scan, which is notorious for underestimating the volume of disease during surgery. There was also no information on pleural effusion or how many patients received it prior to intervention. Existing guidelines suggest staging of mesothelioma should also use PET scans, and invasive mediastinal staging should be assessed with endobronchial ultrasound. “None of these were performed during the trial,” said Dr. Figueroa, who is an associate thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “At this point, my question is, are the arms of this study well balanced in regard to tumor volume? We don’t know,” she added.

Dr. Figueroa noted that the 90-day mortality seemed higher than that seen in other studies. “So, does the surgeon’s experience and center volume affect the outcome of this study?” she asked. Dr. Figueroa personally made phone calls to the participating centers and found that 45% of the patients in the trial were treated at low-volume centers, defined by her as two to three patients per year. “Should we assume that their surgical outcomes are similar between those centers? In this trial, with approximately half of patients from low-volume centers, extended pleurectomy decortication for mesothelioma had no significant difference when compared to those patients that underwent chemotherapy alone. Would the outcome be different in exclusively high-volume centers?” she concluded.

The study randomized 335 patients to receive surgery and chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. They received two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and pemetrexed prior to surgery and up to four cycles after surgery. The average age was 69 years; 86.9% were male, and 85.7% of tumors were epithelioid only. Among those in the surgery group, 88.5% underwent extended pleurectomy/decortication, 8.3% underwent pleurectomy decortication, 1.9% underwent partial pleurectomy, 0.6% exploration with no pleurodesis, and 0.6% were classified as “other” surgery. Completeness of resection was R0 in 3.2% of surgeries, R1 in 80.9%, and R2 in 15.9%. In-hospital mortality occurred in 3.8% of patients, and postsurgical 90-day mortality was 8.9%.

Over the first 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.28 in the no-surgery group (P = .03). “The survival was so good in this early-stage cohort that we had to extend the trial by 6 months to get the prerequisite number of deaths, underscoring the phenomenal importance of having a randomized comparative cohort for all future studies on surgery for mesothelioma,” said Dr. Lim.

After 42 months, there was no survival difference between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.48; P = .15). Dr. Lim attributed the change at 42 months to the fact that only 15 patients remained in each arm at that stage. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to progression-free survival.

The survival benefit of the no-surgery group was sustained after additional analyses, including adjustment of the number of first-line chemotherapy cycles and immunotherapy received after completion of the trial protocol.

Adverse events were more common in the surgery group (incidence rate ratio, 3.6; P < .001), including any cardiac disorder (IRR, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-6.67); any infection or infestation (IRR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.33-2.99); any respiratory, thoracic, or mediastinal disorder (IRR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.52-3.80); and any surgical or medical procedure (IRR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.04-4.78). The EORTC quality of life score favored the nonsurgery group at 6 weeks, but there was no significant difference at other time points.

Dr. Lim and Dr. Figueroa have no relevant financial disclosures.

Pleural mesothelioma is generally treated by extended pleurectomy decortication, and there has been little improvement in systemic treatment of early-stage, resectable mesothelioma, which has led to the recommendations of maximum cytoreduction. U.S. and European guidelines, as well as an international consensus statement, support this approach, but it has never been tested in a randomized, controlled trial.

Now it has, and the result is surprising: Surgery led to reduced survival and more serious adverse events, compared with chemotherapy alone. The conclusion was uncomfortable for Eric Lim, MD, who presented the results of the MARS2 trial at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. “Ladies and gentlemen, as a surgeon standing here, you have no idea how much it pains me to conclude that extended pleurectomy decortication, an operation that we have been offering for over 70 years, has been associated with a higher risk of death, more serious complications, poorer quality of life, and higher costs, compared to mesothelioma patients who were randomized to chemotherapy alone,” said Dr. Lim of the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, during his presentation.

Although the line drew laughter and applause from the audience, Paula Ugalde Figueroa, MD, who served as a discussant, raised some concerns about the study. Disease presence in one hemithorax was assessed only by chest CT scan, which is notorious for underestimating the volume of disease during surgery. There was also no information on pleural effusion or how many patients received it prior to intervention. Existing guidelines suggest staging of mesothelioma should also use PET scans, and invasive mediastinal staging should be assessed with endobronchial ultrasound. “None of these were performed during the trial,” said Dr. Figueroa, who is an associate thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “At this point, my question is, are the arms of this study well balanced in regard to tumor volume? We don’t know,” she added.

Dr. Figueroa noted that the 90-day mortality seemed higher than that seen in other studies. “So, does the surgeon’s experience and center volume affect the outcome of this study?” she asked. Dr. Figueroa personally made phone calls to the participating centers and found that 45% of the patients in the trial were treated at low-volume centers, defined by her as two to three patients per year. “Should we assume that their surgical outcomes are similar between those centers? In this trial, with approximately half of patients from low-volume centers, extended pleurectomy decortication for mesothelioma had no significant difference when compared to those patients that underwent chemotherapy alone. Would the outcome be different in exclusively high-volume centers?” she concluded.

The study randomized 335 patients to receive surgery and chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. They received two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and pemetrexed prior to surgery and up to four cycles after surgery. The average age was 69 years; 86.9% were male, and 85.7% of tumors were epithelioid only. Among those in the surgery group, 88.5% underwent extended pleurectomy/decortication, 8.3% underwent pleurectomy decortication, 1.9% underwent partial pleurectomy, 0.6% exploration with no pleurodesis, and 0.6% were classified as “other” surgery. Completeness of resection was R0 in 3.2% of surgeries, R1 in 80.9%, and R2 in 15.9%. In-hospital mortality occurred in 3.8% of patients, and postsurgical 90-day mortality was 8.9%.

Over the first 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.28 in the no-surgery group (P = .03). “The survival was so good in this early-stage cohort that we had to extend the trial by 6 months to get the prerequisite number of deaths, underscoring the phenomenal importance of having a randomized comparative cohort for all future studies on surgery for mesothelioma,” said Dr. Lim.

After 42 months, there was no survival difference between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.48; P = .15). Dr. Lim attributed the change at 42 months to the fact that only 15 patients remained in each arm at that stage. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to progression-free survival.

The survival benefit of the no-surgery group was sustained after additional analyses, including adjustment of the number of first-line chemotherapy cycles and immunotherapy received after completion of the trial protocol.

Adverse events were more common in the surgery group (incidence rate ratio, 3.6; P < .001), including any cardiac disorder (IRR, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-6.67); any infection or infestation (IRR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.33-2.99); any respiratory, thoracic, or mediastinal disorder (IRR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.52-3.80); and any surgical or medical procedure (IRR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.04-4.78). The EORTC quality of life score favored the nonsurgery group at 6 weeks, but there was no significant difference at other time points.

Dr. Lim and Dr. Figueroa have no relevant financial disclosures.

Pleural mesothelioma is generally treated by extended pleurectomy decortication, and there has been little improvement in systemic treatment of early-stage, resectable mesothelioma, which has led to the recommendations of maximum cytoreduction. U.S. and European guidelines, as well as an international consensus statement, support this approach, but it has never been tested in a randomized, controlled trial.

Now it has, and the result is surprising: Surgery led to reduced survival and more serious adverse events, compared with chemotherapy alone. The conclusion was uncomfortable for Eric Lim, MD, who presented the results of the MARS2 trial at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. “Ladies and gentlemen, as a surgeon standing here, you have no idea how much it pains me to conclude that extended pleurectomy decortication, an operation that we have been offering for over 70 years, has been associated with a higher risk of death, more serious complications, poorer quality of life, and higher costs, compared to mesothelioma patients who were randomized to chemotherapy alone,” said Dr. Lim of the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, during his presentation.

Although the line drew laughter and applause from the audience, Paula Ugalde Figueroa, MD, who served as a discussant, raised some concerns about the study. Disease presence in one hemithorax was assessed only by chest CT scan, which is notorious for underestimating the volume of disease during surgery. There was also no information on pleural effusion or how many patients received it prior to intervention. Existing guidelines suggest staging of mesothelioma should also use PET scans, and invasive mediastinal staging should be assessed with endobronchial ultrasound. “None of these were performed during the trial,” said Dr. Figueroa, who is an associate thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “At this point, my question is, are the arms of this study well balanced in regard to tumor volume? We don’t know,” she added.

Dr. Figueroa noted that the 90-day mortality seemed higher than that seen in other studies. “So, does the surgeon’s experience and center volume affect the outcome of this study?” she asked. Dr. Figueroa personally made phone calls to the participating centers and found that 45% of the patients in the trial were treated at low-volume centers, defined by her as two to three patients per year. “Should we assume that their surgical outcomes are similar between those centers? In this trial, with approximately half of patients from low-volume centers, extended pleurectomy decortication for mesothelioma had no significant difference when compared to those patients that underwent chemotherapy alone. Would the outcome be different in exclusively high-volume centers?” she concluded.

The study randomized 335 patients to receive surgery and chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. They received two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and pemetrexed prior to surgery and up to four cycles after surgery. The average age was 69 years; 86.9% were male, and 85.7% of tumors were epithelioid only. Among those in the surgery group, 88.5% underwent extended pleurectomy/decortication, 8.3% underwent pleurectomy decortication, 1.9% underwent partial pleurectomy, 0.6% exploration with no pleurodesis, and 0.6% were classified as “other” surgery. Completeness of resection was R0 in 3.2% of surgeries, R1 in 80.9%, and R2 in 15.9%. In-hospital mortality occurred in 3.8% of patients, and postsurgical 90-day mortality was 8.9%.

Over the first 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.28 in the no-surgery group (P = .03). “The survival was so good in this early-stage cohort that we had to extend the trial by 6 months to get the prerequisite number of deaths, underscoring the phenomenal importance of having a randomized comparative cohort for all future studies on surgery for mesothelioma,” said Dr. Lim.

After 42 months, there was no survival difference between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.48; P = .15). Dr. Lim attributed the change at 42 months to the fact that only 15 patients remained in each arm at that stage. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to progression-free survival.

The survival benefit of the no-surgery group was sustained after additional analyses, including adjustment of the number of first-line chemotherapy cycles and immunotherapy received after completion of the trial protocol.

Adverse events were more common in the surgery group (incidence rate ratio, 3.6; P < .001), including any cardiac disorder (IRR, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-6.67); any infection or infestation (IRR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.33-2.99); any respiratory, thoracic, or mediastinal disorder (IRR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.52-3.80); and any surgical or medical procedure (IRR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.04-4.78). The EORTC quality of life score favored the nonsurgery group at 6 weeks, but there was no significant difference at other time points.

Dr. Lim and Dr. Figueroa have no relevant financial disclosures.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) link a tumor-targeted antibody to a cytotoxic drug through a chemical linker and hold the promise of high potency. This has led to a burgeoning interest in solid tumors, with over 100 clinical trials in progress. Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is no exception. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved trastuzumab DXd for pretreated NSCLC patients with HER2-mutant tumors. Two others have lung cancer breakthrough therapy designations from the FDA, including patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) for EGFR-mutant NSCLC and telisotuzumab vedotin for NSCLC that overexpresses c-Met.

At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, researchers outlined some of the latest developments in ADCs targeting the antigens HER3, trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP-2), and the B7-H3 immunoregulatory protein, as single agents or in combination with immunotherapy. Following the presentations, discussant Helena Linardou, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for pharmacogenomics to predict toxicity and studies to understand resistance mechanisms. “ADCs are a new, rapidly evolving class of therapeutics, and I think that we will all have to be prepared for the future that is coming,” said Dr. Linardou, who is director of the 4th oncology department and the Comprehensive Clinical Trials Center at Metropolitan Hospital in Athens.

Researchers presented four ADC clinical trial updates.
 

Patritumab deruxtecan

Patritumab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) links a HER3 antibody to the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan (HER3-DXd). In the open-label, phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung01 trial, it was tested in patients with NSCLC EGFR-activation mutations, which occurs in 14%-38% of NSCLC cases. There are few options for these patients following failure of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

The study included 225 patients previously treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy who received 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd every 3 weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13.1 months and a median treatment duration of 5.5 months), 29.8% had a confirmed overall response (95% confidence interval, 23.9%-36.2%) with a median duration of 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.8). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-5.9), and the median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 11.2-13.1). The researchers noted similar outcomes among patients with different mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance. The frequency of adverse events was similar to previous studies, with drug-related adverse events linked to treatment discontinuation of 7.1% interstitial lung disease in 5.3%. Among 30 patients with brain metastases, the confirmed intracranial response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 17.3%-52.8%).

The study was published simultaneously online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. (Abstract)
 

Datopotamab deruxtecan

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are the first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC, but there are efforts to improve outcomes through combination therapy. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca) is an ADC targeting TROP2, and it has been shown in preclinical studies to enhance tumor responses to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The ADC improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with docetaxel, in previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

In an interim analysis of the phase 1b TROPION-Lung04 study, researchers reported results from the combination of Dato-DXd with durvalumab with or without carboplatin. The study included 38 patients, some of whom had previously undergone treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nineteen patients received the doublet, and 14 received the carboplatin triplet. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 42.1% of the doublet group and 71.4% of the triplet group. Interstitial lung disease occurred in 15.8% and 7.1% of the two groups, respectively. The objective response rate was 50.0% in the doublet group and 76.9% in the triplet group. The disease control rate was 92.9% and 92.3%, respectively. Durable responses occurred in both the first-line setting and the overall population. (Abstract)
 

Sacituzumab govitecan

Another ADC being tested with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), which has already received FDA approval for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, pretreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, and metastatic urothelial cancer. Like datopotamab, sacituzumab targets TROP-2. Researchers reported preliminary results from the phase 2 EVOKE-02 study, in which the ADC was combined with pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The overall response rate was 56% (95% CI, 42%-69%). Among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%, the ORR was 69% (95% CI, 49%-85%) and 44% (95% CI, 26%-62%) among those with TPS < 50%. The disease control rate was 86% (95% CI, 68%-96%) and 78% (95% CI, 60%-91%), respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia, and 18% of patients discontinued the study drug because of TEAEs. (Abstract)

Ifinatamab deruxtecan

Ifinatamab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) targets the B7-H3 antigen, which is an immunoregulatory protein that is overexpressed in many tumors. In the DS7300-A-J101 study, it was tested in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, without selection for B7-H3 expression. A subgroup analysis of 22 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) showed an ORR of 52.4 (95% CI, 29.8-74.3), a complete response of 4.8%, and a partial response in 47.6%. The median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.1) and median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 6.4-not applicable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (59.1%), fatigue (50.0%), anemia (27.3%), vomiting (27.3%), and decreased appetite (22.7%). (Abstract)

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) link a tumor-targeted antibody to a cytotoxic drug through a chemical linker and hold the promise of high potency. This has led to a burgeoning interest in solid tumors, with over 100 clinical trials in progress. Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is no exception. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved trastuzumab DXd for pretreated NSCLC patients with HER2-mutant tumors. Two others have lung cancer breakthrough therapy designations from the FDA, including patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) for EGFR-mutant NSCLC and telisotuzumab vedotin for NSCLC that overexpresses c-Met.

At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, researchers outlined some of the latest developments in ADCs targeting the antigens HER3, trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP-2), and the B7-H3 immunoregulatory protein, as single agents or in combination with immunotherapy. Following the presentations, discussant Helena Linardou, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for pharmacogenomics to predict toxicity and studies to understand resistance mechanisms. “ADCs are a new, rapidly evolving class of therapeutics, and I think that we will all have to be prepared for the future that is coming,” said Dr. Linardou, who is director of the 4th oncology department and the Comprehensive Clinical Trials Center at Metropolitan Hospital in Athens.

Researchers presented four ADC clinical trial updates.
 

Patritumab deruxtecan

Patritumab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) links a HER3 antibody to the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan (HER3-DXd). In the open-label, phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung01 trial, it was tested in patients with NSCLC EGFR-activation mutations, which occurs in 14%-38% of NSCLC cases. There are few options for these patients following failure of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

The study included 225 patients previously treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy who received 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd every 3 weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13.1 months and a median treatment duration of 5.5 months), 29.8% had a confirmed overall response (95% confidence interval, 23.9%-36.2%) with a median duration of 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.8). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-5.9), and the median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 11.2-13.1). The researchers noted similar outcomes among patients with different mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance. The frequency of adverse events was similar to previous studies, with drug-related adverse events linked to treatment discontinuation of 7.1% interstitial lung disease in 5.3%. Among 30 patients with brain metastases, the confirmed intracranial response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 17.3%-52.8%).

The study was published simultaneously online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. (Abstract)
 

Datopotamab deruxtecan

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are the first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC, but there are efforts to improve outcomes through combination therapy. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca) is an ADC targeting TROP2, and it has been shown in preclinical studies to enhance tumor responses to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The ADC improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with docetaxel, in previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

In an interim analysis of the phase 1b TROPION-Lung04 study, researchers reported results from the combination of Dato-DXd with durvalumab with or without carboplatin. The study included 38 patients, some of whom had previously undergone treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nineteen patients received the doublet, and 14 received the carboplatin triplet. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 42.1% of the doublet group and 71.4% of the triplet group. Interstitial lung disease occurred in 15.8% and 7.1% of the two groups, respectively. The objective response rate was 50.0% in the doublet group and 76.9% in the triplet group. The disease control rate was 92.9% and 92.3%, respectively. Durable responses occurred in both the first-line setting and the overall population. (Abstract)
 

Sacituzumab govitecan

Another ADC being tested with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), which has already received FDA approval for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, pretreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, and metastatic urothelial cancer. Like datopotamab, sacituzumab targets TROP-2. Researchers reported preliminary results from the phase 2 EVOKE-02 study, in which the ADC was combined with pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The overall response rate was 56% (95% CI, 42%-69%). Among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%, the ORR was 69% (95% CI, 49%-85%) and 44% (95% CI, 26%-62%) among those with TPS < 50%. The disease control rate was 86% (95% CI, 68%-96%) and 78% (95% CI, 60%-91%), respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia, and 18% of patients discontinued the study drug because of TEAEs. (Abstract)

Ifinatamab deruxtecan

Ifinatamab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) targets the B7-H3 antigen, which is an immunoregulatory protein that is overexpressed in many tumors. In the DS7300-A-J101 study, it was tested in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, without selection for B7-H3 expression. A subgroup analysis of 22 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) showed an ORR of 52.4 (95% CI, 29.8-74.3), a complete response of 4.8%, and a partial response in 47.6%. The median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.1) and median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 6.4-not applicable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (59.1%), fatigue (50.0%), anemia (27.3%), vomiting (27.3%), and decreased appetite (22.7%). (Abstract)

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) link a tumor-targeted antibody to a cytotoxic drug through a chemical linker and hold the promise of high potency. This has led to a burgeoning interest in solid tumors, with over 100 clinical trials in progress. Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is no exception. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved trastuzumab DXd for pretreated NSCLC patients with HER2-mutant tumors. Two others have lung cancer breakthrough therapy designations from the FDA, including patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) for EGFR-mutant NSCLC and telisotuzumab vedotin for NSCLC that overexpresses c-Met.

At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, researchers outlined some of the latest developments in ADCs targeting the antigens HER3, trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (TROP-2), and the B7-H3 immunoregulatory protein, as single agents or in combination with immunotherapy. Following the presentations, discussant Helena Linardou, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for pharmacogenomics to predict toxicity and studies to understand resistance mechanisms. “ADCs are a new, rapidly evolving class of therapeutics, and I think that we will all have to be prepared for the future that is coming,” said Dr. Linardou, who is director of the 4th oncology department and the Comprehensive Clinical Trials Center at Metropolitan Hospital in Athens.

Researchers presented four ADC clinical trial updates.
 

Patritumab deruxtecan

Patritumab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) links a HER3 antibody to the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan (HER3-DXd). In the open-label, phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung01 trial, it was tested in patients with NSCLC EGFR-activation mutations, which occurs in 14%-38% of NSCLC cases. There are few options for these patients following failure of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

The study included 225 patients previously treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy who received 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd every 3 weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13.1 months and a median treatment duration of 5.5 months), 29.8% had a confirmed overall response (95% confidence interval, 23.9%-36.2%) with a median duration of 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.8). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-5.9), and the median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 11.2-13.1). The researchers noted similar outcomes among patients with different mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance. The frequency of adverse events was similar to previous studies, with drug-related adverse events linked to treatment discontinuation of 7.1% interstitial lung disease in 5.3%. Among 30 patients with brain metastases, the confirmed intracranial response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 17.3%-52.8%).

The study was published simultaneously online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. (Abstract)
 

Datopotamab deruxtecan

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are the first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC, but there are efforts to improve outcomes through combination therapy. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca) is an ADC targeting TROP2, and it has been shown in preclinical studies to enhance tumor responses to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The ADC improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with docetaxel, in previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

In an interim analysis of the phase 1b TROPION-Lung04 study, researchers reported results from the combination of Dato-DXd with durvalumab with or without carboplatin. The study included 38 patients, some of whom had previously undergone treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nineteen patients received the doublet, and 14 received the carboplatin triplet. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 42.1% of the doublet group and 71.4% of the triplet group. Interstitial lung disease occurred in 15.8% and 7.1% of the two groups, respectively. The objective response rate was 50.0% in the doublet group and 76.9% in the triplet group. The disease control rate was 92.9% and 92.3%, respectively. Durable responses occurred in both the first-line setting and the overall population. (Abstract)
 

Sacituzumab govitecan

Another ADC being tested with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead), which has already received FDA approval for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, pretreated HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, and metastatic urothelial cancer. Like datopotamab, sacituzumab targets TROP-2. Researchers reported preliminary results from the phase 2 EVOKE-02 study, in which the ADC was combined with pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The overall response rate was 56% (95% CI, 42%-69%). Among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%, the ORR was 69% (95% CI, 49%-85%) and 44% (95% CI, 26%-62%) among those with TPS < 50%. The disease control rate was 86% (95% CI, 68%-96%) and 78% (95% CI, 60%-91%), respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea, anemia, and asthenia, and 18% of patients discontinued the study drug because of TEAEs. (Abstract)

Ifinatamab deruxtecan

Ifinatamab deruxtecan (Daiichi Sankyo) targets the B7-H3 antigen, which is an immunoregulatory protein that is overexpressed in many tumors. In the DS7300-A-J101 study, it was tested in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, without selection for B7-H3 expression. A subgroup analysis of 22 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) showed an ORR of 52.4 (95% CI, 29.8-74.3), a complete response of 4.8%, and a partial response in 47.6%. The median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.1) and median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 6.4-not applicable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (59.1%), fatigue (50.0%), anemia (27.3%), vomiting (27.3%), and decreased appetite (22.7%). (Abstract)

AUSTIN, TEX – Posttraumatic headache presents physicians with a dilemma: Should patients be treated early on with preventatives, or should clinicians delay any preventative treatment to see whether headaches resolve on their own? There are no guidelines available, nor is there much quality evidence to support one decision or another, according to two experts who debated the question at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Early treatment

Frank Conidi, DO, spoke first, and pointed out the need to define both early treatment and the condition being treated. Is it early-treatment abortive, is it preventative, and if the patient has a concussion, is it a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), or severe TBI?

Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology

The majority of patients with posttraumatic headache will meet criteria for migraine or probable migraine. “It can be anywhere from 58% to upwards of 90%. And if you see these patients, it makes sense, because posttraumatic headache patients are disabled by their headaches,” said Dr. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology.

He argued for early treatment to reduce chronification. “We know that if headaches are left untreated, they’re going to start to spiral up and become daily. This leads to the development of peripheral and central sensitization and lowers the threshold for further migraine attacks,” said Dr. Conidi.

He noted that patients with posttraumatic headache often have comorbidities such as sleep issues, neck pain, or posttraumatic stress disorder, all of which are risk factors for chronification. Treatment does not necessarily mean medication, however. “The mainstay of posttraumatic headache treatment is actually physical and cognitive activity to tolerance. And what I call the 20/5 rule: 20 minutes of physical activity with 5-minute chill breaks. In addition, we use light sub-aerobic exercise 3 to 5 days out in concussion, [which] has been shown to improve concussion recovery time,” he said.

Dr. Conidi suggested treatment of triggers, such as neck issues and whiplash symptoms. “Probably the best treatment I’ve ever seen, and I published on this, are pericranial nerve blocks. Pericranial nerve blocks work wonderfully. If you’re going to block the pericranial nerves, block them all, not just the occipital. Block the trigeminal branches. I’ve actually been able to locate a little two-and-a-half-inch plastic Luer-lock catheter that I can hook on a 1-cc syringe with viscous lidocaine, and I can do sphenopalatine ganglion blocks on all my patients now for under 25 cents. So we’ve been combining the nerve blocks, and we’ve been using them early. Oftentimes the patients won’t have any further headaches, especially if it’s [after] a concussion,” he said.

With respect to concussion-related posttraumatic headache, he summed up: “We’re aggressive early. We’re using intervention. We’re layering our treatment. We’re using medications: prednisone, NSAIDS, and now we have gepants. We’ve been having good success with using gepants,” he said.

Treatment of TBI patients is broadly similar, with the main difference being that neurologists typically won’t see such patients early on as they may be in rehab facilities or hospitals for extended periods. “You may not be getting [to see] them for 1 or 2 months. In that case, you want to educate your neurosurgery and your [physical medicine and rehabilitation] colleagues on the treatment.

Finally, he described work that his group has done in using stimulants for posttraumatic headache. “Stimulants not only treat the cognitive symptoms, but they give the patient cognitive reserve and we find that it gets the patient through the day so they actually have less headaches. It’s a form of prevention. I know there are shortages nationally of both Adderall and Ritalin, but we have had excellent results in our posttraumatic patients using these types of medications,” said Dr. Conidi.
 

Delayed treatment

Amaal J. Starling, MD, offered a counterargument, but she narrowed the question down to whether preventive treatment should be used within one and a half months of the injury, which she defined as early treatment. Her argument against early preventive treatment centered around the core value of beneficence – to act for the benefit of the patient, and avoid harm.

Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale

She discussed the natural history of posttraumatic headache, which is largely self-limited. For example, an NCAA study that found 88% of concussions had symptom resolution within 1 week, and 86% of posttraumatic headache resolved within 1 week. “If individuals routinely are having a self-limited course, there is no need for early treatment with a preventive treatment option because the majority of posttraumatic headache is resolving within that one-and-a-half-month postinjury threshold. The better recommendation, as provided in evidence from Dr. Conidi’s presentation, is to provide supportive care, including acute medications or acute treatment options like nerve blocks for acute pain relief and symptom relief,” said Dr. Starling, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Dr. Starling expressed concern that preventive medications could lead to worsening of comorbidities. For example, posttraumatic headache is often associated with autonomic dysfunction and visual vestibular dysfunction. The former commonly occurs with concussion and is similar to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and the second most common symptom of POTS is headache, according to Dr. Starling. Posttraumatic POTS is treated similarly to idiopathic POTS, with a nonpharmacologic approach. One element of POTS management is to withdraw exacerbating medications such as beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and SNRIs. “These look strikingly similar to some of the headache preventive medications that we might consider for somebody, and so the concern is early preventive treatment with these medications to treat the posttraumatic headache may actually worsen some of these comorbidities that are present in our posttraumatic headache patients. We have to be careful about potentially exacerbating comorbidities with early preventive treatment,” she said.

Prevention medications for headache can also worsen visual vestibular dysfunction, such as dizziness. There are some data suggesting that vestibular rehabilitation and vision therapy can improve dizziness, but also headache. “We all know that many of our preventive medications for headache could potentially exacerbate visual vestibular symptoms, so we have to be careful about that. So again, first do no harm. Posttraumatic POTS is common and causes headache. Posttraumatic vestibular dysfunction is common and causes headache. Instead of initiating a headache preventive medication early, we recommend to identify these comorbidities and provide targeted treatment. Treatment of these comorbidities may, in and of itself, improve the headache. We also we have to be careful because some preventive medications may worsen the comorbidities,” said Dr. Starling.
 

Areas of agreement

Dr. Conidi agreed that preventative treatment is less likely to be needed for concussion patients, but said that TBI patients are more likely to require it to prevent chronification. Dr. Starling agreed that chronification is an important concern, but she noted that many posttraumatic headache patients are athletes, and preventative medications can also lead to issues that might interfere with return to play, such as decreased sweating, or weight gain or loss. This is complicated by the fact that titration and weaning periods can be long. “We have to be very careful about these medications’ side effects, especially when we don’t have the evidence to demonstrate that it is worth the potential risk of being put on these medications,” she said.

The debate led Catherin Chong, PhD, to ask about the state of the field. “There’s a posttraumatic headache special interest section here [at AHS 2023], and the question that really is coming up at every meeting is, is there some coherence in the field? Is it too early or is it time for a position statement?” asked Dr. Chong, a career scientist at Mayo Clinic (Phoenix). Dr. Chong comoderated the debate and ensuing discussion.

Dr. Starling felt it’s too early for a position statement, but a scoping review could identify research questions that could lead to a position statement. “I’m really excited about the work that’s being done to identify the cohort of individuals with acute posttraumatic headache that may chronify to persistent posttraumatic headache so that we can minimize the risk of exposing the large cohort that’s going to be likely self-limited to a treatment option. Then we can identify those individuals where that risk is worth it because they’re the ones that could lead to chronification. Figuring out if that’s looking at levels of allodynia or other factors that can [help identify those at most risk] would be important,” she said.

Dr. Conidi agreed with the need for more information on the parameters to be studied, but he expressed the belief that any position statement would be a consensus statement. “It’s not going to have any hard evidence behind it, but I do think we need [a position statement]. Even in the general neurology world, there’s a huge lack of understanding of how to treat these patients,” he said.

Dr. Conidi did not make any disclosures. Dr. Starling has consulted for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Axsome Therapeutics, Everyday Health, Lundbeck, Med-IQ, Medscape, Neurolief, Satsuma, and WebMD. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX – Posttraumatic headache presents physicians with a dilemma: Should patients be treated early on with preventatives, or should clinicians delay any preventative treatment to see whether headaches resolve on their own? There are no guidelines available, nor is there much quality evidence to support one decision or another, according to two experts who debated the question at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Early treatment

Frank Conidi, DO, spoke first, and pointed out the need to define both early treatment and the condition being treated. Is it early-treatment abortive, is it preventative, and if the patient has a concussion, is it a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), or severe TBI?

Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology

The majority of patients with posttraumatic headache will meet criteria for migraine or probable migraine. “It can be anywhere from 58% to upwards of 90%. And if you see these patients, it makes sense, because posttraumatic headache patients are disabled by their headaches,” said Dr. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology.

He argued for early treatment to reduce chronification. “We know that if headaches are left untreated, they’re going to start to spiral up and become daily. This leads to the development of peripheral and central sensitization and lowers the threshold for further migraine attacks,” said Dr. Conidi.

He noted that patients with posttraumatic headache often have comorbidities such as sleep issues, neck pain, or posttraumatic stress disorder, all of which are risk factors for chronification. Treatment does not necessarily mean medication, however. “The mainstay of posttraumatic headache treatment is actually physical and cognitive activity to tolerance. And what I call the 20/5 rule: 20 minutes of physical activity with 5-minute chill breaks. In addition, we use light sub-aerobic exercise 3 to 5 days out in concussion, [which] has been shown to improve concussion recovery time,” he said.

Dr. Conidi suggested treatment of triggers, such as neck issues and whiplash symptoms. “Probably the best treatment I’ve ever seen, and I published on this, are pericranial nerve blocks. Pericranial nerve blocks work wonderfully. If you’re going to block the pericranial nerves, block them all, not just the occipital. Block the trigeminal branches. I’ve actually been able to locate a little two-and-a-half-inch plastic Luer-lock catheter that I can hook on a 1-cc syringe with viscous lidocaine, and I can do sphenopalatine ganglion blocks on all my patients now for under 25 cents. So we’ve been combining the nerve blocks, and we’ve been using them early. Oftentimes the patients won’t have any further headaches, especially if it’s [after] a concussion,” he said.

With respect to concussion-related posttraumatic headache, he summed up: “We’re aggressive early. We’re using intervention. We’re layering our treatment. We’re using medications: prednisone, NSAIDS, and now we have gepants. We’ve been having good success with using gepants,” he said.

Treatment of TBI patients is broadly similar, with the main difference being that neurologists typically won’t see such patients early on as they may be in rehab facilities or hospitals for extended periods. “You may not be getting [to see] them for 1 or 2 months. In that case, you want to educate your neurosurgery and your [physical medicine and rehabilitation] colleagues on the treatment.

Finally, he described work that his group has done in using stimulants for posttraumatic headache. “Stimulants not only treat the cognitive symptoms, but they give the patient cognitive reserve and we find that it gets the patient through the day so they actually have less headaches. It’s a form of prevention. I know there are shortages nationally of both Adderall and Ritalin, but we have had excellent results in our posttraumatic patients using these types of medications,” said Dr. Conidi.
 

Delayed treatment

Amaal J. Starling, MD, offered a counterargument, but she narrowed the question down to whether preventive treatment should be used within one and a half months of the injury, which she defined as early treatment. Her argument against early preventive treatment centered around the core value of beneficence – to act for the benefit of the patient, and avoid harm.

Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale

She discussed the natural history of posttraumatic headache, which is largely self-limited. For example, an NCAA study that found 88% of concussions had symptom resolution within 1 week, and 86% of posttraumatic headache resolved within 1 week. “If individuals routinely are having a self-limited course, there is no need for early treatment with a preventive treatment option because the majority of posttraumatic headache is resolving within that one-and-a-half-month postinjury threshold. The better recommendation, as provided in evidence from Dr. Conidi’s presentation, is to provide supportive care, including acute medications or acute treatment options like nerve blocks for acute pain relief and symptom relief,” said Dr. Starling, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Dr. Starling expressed concern that preventive medications could lead to worsening of comorbidities. For example, posttraumatic headache is often associated with autonomic dysfunction and visual vestibular dysfunction. The former commonly occurs with concussion and is similar to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and the second most common symptom of POTS is headache, according to Dr. Starling. Posttraumatic POTS is treated similarly to idiopathic POTS, with a nonpharmacologic approach. One element of POTS management is to withdraw exacerbating medications such as beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and SNRIs. “These look strikingly similar to some of the headache preventive medications that we might consider for somebody, and so the concern is early preventive treatment with these medications to treat the posttraumatic headache may actually worsen some of these comorbidities that are present in our posttraumatic headache patients. We have to be careful about potentially exacerbating comorbidities with early preventive treatment,” she said.

Prevention medications for headache can also worsen visual vestibular dysfunction, such as dizziness. There are some data suggesting that vestibular rehabilitation and vision therapy can improve dizziness, but also headache. “We all know that many of our preventive medications for headache could potentially exacerbate visual vestibular symptoms, so we have to be careful about that. So again, first do no harm. Posttraumatic POTS is common and causes headache. Posttraumatic vestibular dysfunction is common and causes headache. Instead of initiating a headache preventive medication early, we recommend to identify these comorbidities and provide targeted treatment. Treatment of these comorbidities may, in and of itself, improve the headache. We also we have to be careful because some preventive medications may worsen the comorbidities,” said Dr. Starling.
 

Areas of agreement

Dr. Conidi agreed that preventative treatment is less likely to be needed for concussion patients, but said that TBI patients are more likely to require it to prevent chronification. Dr. Starling agreed that chronification is an important concern, but she noted that many posttraumatic headache patients are athletes, and preventative medications can also lead to issues that might interfere with return to play, such as decreased sweating, or weight gain or loss. This is complicated by the fact that titration and weaning periods can be long. “We have to be very careful about these medications’ side effects, especially when we don’t have the evidence to demonstrate that it is worth the potential risk of being put on these medications,” she said.

The debate led Catherin Chong, PhD, to ask about the state of the field. “There’s a posttraumatic headache special interest section here [at AHS 2023], and the question that really is coming up at every meeting is, is there some coherence in the field? Is it too early or is it time for a position statement?” asked Dr. Chong, a career scientist at Mayo Clinic (Phoenix). Dr. Chong comoderated the debate and ensuing discussion.

Dr. Starling felt it’s too early for a position statement, but a scoping review could identify research questions that could lead to a position statement. “I’m really excited about the work that’s being done to identify the cohort of individuals with acute posttraumatic headache that may chronify to persistent posttraumatic headache so that we can minimize the risk of exposing the large cohort that’s going to be likely self-limited to a treatment option. Then we can identify those individuals where that risk is worth it because they’re the ones that could lead to chronification. Figuring out if that’s looking at levels of allodynia or other factors that can [help identify those at most risk] would be important,” she said.

Dr. Conidi agreed with the need for more information on the parameters to be studied, but he expressed the belief that any position statement would be a consensus statement. “It’s not going to have any hard evidence behind it, but I do think we need [a position statement]. Even in the general neurology world, there’s a huge lack of understanding of how to treat these patients,” he said.

Dr. Conidi did not make any disclosures. Dr. Starling has consulted for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Axsome Therapeutics, Everyday Health, Lundbeck, Med-IQ, Medscape, Neurolief, Satsuma, and WebMD. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX – Posttraumatic headache presents physicians with a dilemma: Should patients be treated early on with preventatives, or should clinicians delay any preventative treatment to see whether headaches resolve on their own? There are no guidelines available, nor is there much quality evidence to support one decision or another, according to two experts who debated the question at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Early treatment

Frank Conidi, DO, spoke first, and pointed out the need to define both early treatment and the condition being treated. Is it early-treatment abortive, is it preventative, and if the patient has a concussion, is it a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), or severe TBI?

Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology

The majority of patients with posttraumatic headache will meet criteria for migraine or probable migraine. “It can be anywhere from 58% to upwards of 90%. And if you see these patients, it makes sense, because posttraumatic headache patients are disabled by their headaches,” said Dr. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology.

He argued for early treatment to reduce chronification. “We know that if headaches are left untreated, they’re going to start to spiral up and become daily. This leads to the development of peripheral and central sensitization and lowers the threshold for further migraine attacks,” said Dr. Conidi.

He noted that patients with posttraumatic headache often have comorbidities such as sleep issues, neck pain, or posttraumatic stress disorder, all of which are risk factors for chronification. Treatment does not necessarily mean medication, however. “The mainstay of posttraumatic headache treatment is actually physical and cognitive activity to tolerance. And what I call the 20/5 rule: 20 minutes of physical activity with 5-minute chill breaks. In addition, we use light sub-aerobic exercise 3 to 5 days out in concussion, [which] has been shown to improve concussion recovery time,” he said.

Dr. Conidi suggested treatment of triggers, such as neck issues and whiplash symptoms. “Probably the best treatment I’ve ever seen, and I published on this, are pericranial nerve blocks. Pericranial nerve blocks work wonderfully. If you’re going to block the pericranial nerves, block them all, not just the occipital. Block the trigeminal branches. I’ve actually been able to locate a little two-and-a-half-inch plastic Luer-lock catheter that I can hook on a 1-cc syringe with viscous lidocaine, and I can do sphenopalatine ganglion blocks on all my patients now for under 25 cents. So we’ve been combining the nerve blocks, and we’ve been using them early. Oftentimes the patients won’t have any further headaches, especially if it’s [after] a concussion,” he said.

With respect to concussion-related posttraumatic headache, he summed up: “We’re aggressive early. We’re using intervention. We’re layering our treatment. We’re using medications: prednisone, NSAIDS, and now we have gepants. We’ve been having good success with using gepants,” he said.

Treatment of TBI patients is broadly similar, with the main difference being that neurologists typically won’t see such patients early on as they may be in rehab facilities or hospitals for extended periods. “You may not be getting [to see] them for 1 or 2 months. In that case, you want to educate your neurosurgery and your [physical medicine and rehabilitation] colleagues on the treatment.

Finally, he described work that his group has done in using stimulants for posttraumatic headache. “Stimulants not only treat the cognitive symptoms, but they give the patient cognitive reserve and we find that it gets the patient through the day so they actually have less headaches. It’s a form of prevention. I know there are shortages nationally of both Adderall and Ritalin, but we have had excellent results in our posttraumatic patients using these types of medications,” said Dr. Conidi.
 

Delayed treatment

Amaal J. Starling, MD, offered a counterargument, but she narrowed the question down to whether preventive treatment should be used within one and a half months of the injury, which she defined as early treatment. Her argument against early preventive treatment centered around the core value of beneficence – to act for the benefit of the patient, and avoid harm.

Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale

She discussed the natural history of posttraumatic headache, which is largely self-limited. For example, an NCAA study that found 88% of concussions had symptom resolution within 1 week, and 86% of posttraumatic headache resolved within 1 week. “If individuals routinely are having a self-limited course, there is no need for early treatment with a preventive treatment option because the majority of posttraumatic headache is resolving within that one-and-a-half-month postinjury threshold. The better recommendation, as provided in evidence from Dr. Conidi’s presentation, is to provide supportive care, including acute medications or acute treatment options like nerve blocks for acute pain relief and symptom relief,” said Dr. Starling, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Dr. Starling expressed concern that preventive medications could lead to worsening of comorbidities. For example, posttraumatic headache is often associated with autonomic dysfunction and visual vestibular dysfunction. The former commonly occurs with concussion and is similar to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and the second most common symptom of POTS is headache, according to Dr. Starling. Posttraumatic POTS is treated similarly to idiopathic POTS, with a nonpharmacologic approach. One element of POTS management is to withdraw exacerbating medications such as beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and SNRIs. “These look strikingly similar to some of the headache preventive medications that we might consider for somebody, and so the concern is early preventive treatment with these medications to treat the posttraumatic headache may actually worsen some of these comorbidities that are present in our posttraumatic headache patients. We have to be careful about potentially exacerbating comorbidities with early preventive treatment,” she said.

Prevention medications for headache can also worsen visual vestibular dysfunction, such as dizziness. There are some data suggesting that vestibular rehabilitation and vision therapy can improve dizziness, but also headache. “We all know that many of our preventive medications for headache could potentially exacerbate visual vestibular symptoms, so we have to be careful about that. So again, first do no harm. Posttraumatic POTS is common and causes headache. Posttraumatic vestibular dysfunction is common and causes headache. Instead of initiating a headache preventive medication early, we recommend to identify these comorbidities and provide targeted treatment. Treatment of these comorbidities may, in and of itself, improve the headache. We also we have to be careful because some preventive medications may worsen the comorbidities,” said Dr. Starling.
 

Areas of agreement

Dr. Conidi agreed that preventative treatment is less likely to be needed for concussion patients, but said that TBI patients are more likely to require it to prevent chronification. Dr. Starling agreed that chronification is an important concern, but she noted that many posttraumatic headache patients are athletes, and preventative medications can also lead to issues that might interfere with return to play, such as decreased sweating, or weight gain or loss. This is complicated by the fact that titration and weaning periods can be long. “We have to be very careful about these medications’ side effects, especially when we don’t have the evidence to demonstrate that it is worth the potential risk of being put on these medications,” she said.

The debate led Catherin Chong, PhD, to ask about the state of the field. “There’s a posttraumatic headache special interest section here [at AHS 2023], and the question that really is coming up at every meeting is, is there some coherence in the field? Is it too early or is it time for a position statement?” asked Dr. Chong, a career scientist at Mayo Clinic (Phoenix). Dr. Chong comoderated the debate and ensuing discussion.

Dr. Starling felt it’s too early for a position statement, but a scoping review could identify research questions that could lead to a position statement. “I’m really excited about the work that’s being done to identify the cohort of individuals with acute posttraumatic headache that may chronify to persistent posttraumatic headache so that we can minimize the risk of exposing the large cohort that’s going to be likely self-limited to a treatment option. Then we can identify those individuals where that risk is worth it because they’re the ones that could lead to chronification. Figuring out if that’s looking at levels of allodynia or other factors that can [help identify those at most risk] would be important,” she said.

Dr. Conidi agreed with the need for more information on the parameters to be studied, but he expressed the belief that any position statement would be a consensus statement. “It’s not going to have any hard evidence behind it, but I do think we need [a position statement]. Even in the general neurology world, there’s a huge lack of understanding of how to treat these patients,” he said.

Dr. Conidi did not make any disclosures. Dr. Starling has consulted for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Axsome Therapeutics, Everyday Health, Lundbeck, Med-IQ, Medscape, Neurolief, Satsuma, and WebMD. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX – Treatment with ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbvie) during the prodromal phase of a migraine led to a reduction in both prodromal symptoms and ensuing migraine frequency, according to results from a new randomized, crossover study. Researchers took pains to identify migraineurs who could predict an ensuing headache 75% of the time based on prodromal symptoms. Those who could make such predictions were allowed into the randomized study.

Patients are quite good at predicting ensuing headaches when encouraged to do so, according to Peter J. Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, who presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“I find it quite useful to ask patients about these [symptoms]: Have you got cognitive clouding? Do you pass more urine? Have you got mood change? Do you feel fatigue? Associated with the attack, is how I phrase it. Get them first into the idea of thinking about the symptoms, and then get them to think about when they’re occurring. Certainly with things like brain fog, many patients will tell you that it happens. If you ask them whether they’re 100% [certain] when that’s happening, they will tell you [they’re] not. This is part of taking a history and building a relationship with the patient,” Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during the Q&A after his presentation.
 

‘Significant’ finding

“This is a significant finding because what patients really want is not to develop their headache and no medication has been shown to prevent a headache during the prodrome,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, a board certified neurologist and headache expert, as well as clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. Successful treatment during the prodrome treatment could eliminate the need for use of preventive medication, which might decrease the patient’s adverse effects, he said.

Session comoderator Jason J. Sico, MD, took note of the patient experience during the prodrome period. “One of many noteworthy things is the large percentage of people that reported disability during prodrome before the headache. I just find that staggering, though not surprising to many of us,” he said during the session. Dr. Sico is associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Sico were not involved in the study.
 

Probing the prodrome

The study included a 60-day screening period, which had to include between 3 and 16 recorded prodrome events. Headaches had to occur within 1-6 hours in at least 75% of prodrome events. Study subjects were then randomized to 100 mg ubrogepant or placebo for up to 60 days. After their first prodrome event, they entered a 7-day washout period, and then crossed over to the other group until they experienced a second prodrome event.

During the screening period, 81.5% of prodromal events identified by patients were followed by a headache within 1-6 hours of onset. Nearly 10% of the time headache occurred in 1 hour or less, 81.5% between 1 and 6 hours, and 4.5% between 6 and 24 hours after prodrome. Commonly reported prodromal symptoms included sensitivity to light (57.2%), fatigue (50.1%), neck pain (41.9%), sensitivity to sound (33.9%), and dizziness (27.8%).

The study included 247 patients in the first sequence, and 233 in the second sequence. Patient characteristics were similar in both. Ubrogepant treatment led to a greater absence of moderate- or severe-intensity headache within 24 hours of the dose (45.5% vs. 28.6% headache-free; odds ratio [OR], 2.09; P < .0001). They were also more likely to report normal functioning over 24 hours (OR, 1.66; P < .0001) and to have absence of headache within 24 hours (23.7% vs. 13.9%; OR, 1.93; P < .0001).

Between 73% and 75% of participants reported at least mild functional disability before taking medication. Two hours after a dose, ubrogepant led to a higher rate of normal functioning (37.0% vs. 26.1%; P < .001). Ubrogepant had a similar positive effect on sensitivity to light, fatigue, neck pain, sensitivity to sound, and dizziness. Adverse events were higher during ubrogepant treatment (13.2% vs. 9.1%), and included nausea, dizziness, fatigue, and somnolence, all of which were mild. “One is really scraping the barrel [to identify adverse events]. There were no serious adverse events,” said Dr. Goadsby.
 

A unique result?

One questioner asked if other medications used during the prodrome might yield similar results. Dr. Goadsby expressed doubt. “I think the evidence for other treatments is not terribly good. The triptan evidence is really poor. There is no randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a triptan explicitly in promontory symptomatology. There are randomized placebo controlled trials of triptans during the aura phase. The best one was the injected sumatriptan study, and it failed. So, as far as I can see from the randomized-controlled data, triptans don’t do this, and we don’t have good data for nonsteroidals and other therapies,” said Dr. Goadsby.

The researchers showed that you could treat a patient in advance of the headache to actually prevent the headache a significant number of times; it also reduced the prodromal events and it got patients back to normal functioning to a greater extent.

Dr. Goadsby was asked how many patients are typically able to identify prodrome periods on their own. He estimated that about one in three can do it initially. “I think if you teach people how to do this, it becomes very common. I would say four out of five people in my practice are able to talk about this, but you have to introduce the topic. They’ve had [prodrome symptoms], but they haven’t thought about it for a while. This is one of the things where headache doctors can offer real benefit in helping educate patients,” said Dr. Goadsby.

Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the Editorial Board of CNS Drugs. Dr. Goadsby has financial ties to Amgen, Eli Lilly, Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan, Autonomic Technologies Inc., Biohaven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Electrocore, eNeura, Massachusetts Medical Society, MedicoLegal work, Novartis, Oxford University Press, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Trigemina, Up-to-Date, and Wolters Kluwer. He has a patent for headache assigned to eNeura without fee.

AUSTIN, TEX – Treatment with ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbvie) during the prodromal phase of a migraine led to a reduction in both prodromal symptoms and ensuing migraine frequency, according to results from a new randomized, crossover study. Researchers took pains to identify migraineurs who could predict an ensuing headache 75% of the time based on prodromal symptoms. Those who could make such predictions were allowed into the randomized study.

Patients are quite good at predicting ensuing headaches when encouraged to do so, according to Peter J. Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, who presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“I find it quite useful to ask patients about these [symptoms]: Have you got cognitive clouding? Do you pass more urine? Have you got mood change? Do you feel fatigue? Associated with the attack, is how I phrase it. Get them first into the idea of thinking about the symptoms, and then get them to think about when they’re occurring. Certainly with things like brain fog, many patients will tell you that it happens. If you ask them whether they’re 100% [certain] when that’s happening, they will tell you [they’re] not. This is part of taking a history and building a relationship with the patient,” Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during the Q&A after his presentation.
 

‘Significant’ finding

“This is a significant finding because what patients really want is not to develop their headache and no medication has been shown to prevent a headache during the prodrome,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, a board certified neurologist and headache expert, as well as clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. Successful treatment during the prodrome treatment could eliminate the need for use of preventive medication, which might decrease the patient’s adverse effects, he said.

Session comoderator Jason J. Sico, MD, took note of the patient experience during the prodrome period. “One of many noteworthy things is the large percentage of people that reported disability during prodrome before the headache. I just find that staggering, though not surprising to many of us,” he said during the session. Dr. Sico is associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Sico were not involved in the study.
 

Probing the prodrome

The study included a 60-day screening period, which had to include between 3 and 16 recorded prodrome events. Headaches had to occur within 1-6 hours in at least 75% of prodrome events. Study subjects were then randomized to 100 mg ubrogepant or placebo for up to 60 days. After their first prodrome event, they entered a 7-day washout period, and then crossed over to the other group until they experienced a second prodrome event.

During the screening period, 81.5% of prodromal events identified by patients were followed by a headache within 1-6 hours of onset. Nearly 10% of the time headache occurred in 1 hour or less, 81.5% between 1 and 6 hours, and 4.5% between 6 and 24 hours after prodrome. Commonly reported prodromal symptoms included sensitivity to light (57.2%), fatigue (50.1%), neck pain (41.9%), sensitivity to sound (33.9%), and dizziness (27.8%).

The study included 247 patients in the first sequence, and 233 in the second sequence. Patient characteristics were similar in both. Ubrogepant treatment led to a greater absence of moderate- or severe-intensity headache within 24 hours of the dose (45.5% vs. 28.6% headache-free; odds ratio [OR], 2.09; P < .0001). They were also more likely to report normal functioning over 24 hours (OR, 1.66; P < .0001) and to have absence of headache within 24 hours (23.7% vs. 13.9%; OR, 1.93; P < .0001).

Between 73% and 75% of participants reported at least mild functional disability before taking medication. Two hours after a dose, ubrogepant led to a higher rate of normal functioning (37.0% vs. 26.1%; P < .001). Ubrogepant had a similar positive effect on sensitivity to light, fatigue, neck pain, sensitivity to sound, and dizziness. Adverse events were higher during ubrogepant treatment (13.2% vs. 9.1%), and included nausea, dizziness, fatigue, and somnolence, all of which were mild. “One is really scraping the barrel [to identify adverse events]. There were no serious adverse events,” said Dr. Goadsby.
 

A unique result?

One questioner asked if other medications used during the prodrome might yield similar results. Dr. Goadsby expressed doubt. “I think the evidence for other treatments is not terribly good. The triptan evidence is really poor. There is no randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a triptan explicitly in promontory symptomatology. There are randomized placebo controlled trials of triptans during the aura phase. The best one was the injected sumatriptan study, and it failed. So, as far as I can see from the randomized-controlled data, triptans don’t do this, and we don’t have good data for nonsteroidals and other therapies,” said Dr. Goadsby.

The researchers showed that you could treat a patient in advance of the headache to actually prevent the headache a significant number of times; it also reduced the prodromal events and it got patients back to normal functioning to a greater extent.

Dr. Goadsby was asked how many patients are typically able to identify prodrome periods on their own. He estimated that about one in three can do it initially. “I think if you teach people how to do this, it becomes very common. I would say four out of five people in my practice are able to talk about this, but you have to introduce the topic. They’ve had [prodrome symptoms], but they haven’t thought about it for a while. This is one of the things where headache doctors can offer real benefit in helping educate patients,” said Dr. Goadsby.

Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the Editorial Board of CNS Drugs. Dr. Goadsby has financial ties to Amgen, Eli Lilly, Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan, Autonomic Technologies Inc., Biohaven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Electrocore, eNeura, Massachusetts Medical Society, MedicoLegal work, Novartis, Oxford University Press, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Trigemina, Up-to-Date, and Wolters Kluwer. He has a patent for headache assigned to eNeura without fee.

AUSTIN, TEX – Treatment with ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbvie) during the prodromal phase of a migraine led to a reduction in both prodromal symptoms and ensuing migraine frequency, according to results from a new randomized, crossover study. Researchers took pains to identify migraineurs who could predict an ensuing headache 75% of the time based on prodromal symptoms. Those who could make such predictions were allowed into the randomized study.

Patients are quite good at predicting ensuing headaches when encouraged to do so, according to Peter J. Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, who presented the study findings at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“I find it quite useful to ask patients about these [symptoms]: Have you got cognitive clouding? Do you pass more urine? Have you got mood change? Do you feel fatigue? Associated with the attack, is how I phrase it. Get them first into the idea of thinking about the symptoms, and then get them to think about when they’re occurring. Certainly with things like brain fog, many patients will tell you that it happens. If you ask them whether they’re 100% [certain] when that’s happening, they will tell you [they’re] not. This is part of taking a history and building a relationship with the patient,” Dr. Goadsby, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during the Q&A after his presentation.
 

‘Significant’ finding

“This is a significant finding because what patients really want is not to develop their headache and no medication has been shown to prevent a headache during the prodrome,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, a board certified neurologist and headache expert, as well as clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. Successful treatment during the prodrome treatment could eliminate the need for use of preventive medication, which might decrease the patient’s adverse effects, he said.

Session comoderator Jason J. Sico, MD, took note of the patient experience during the prodrome period. “One of many noteworthy things is the large percentage of people that reported disability during prodrome before the headache. I just find that staggering, though not surprising to many of us,” he said during the session. Dr. Sico is associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Sico were not involved in the study.
 

Probing the prodrome

The study included a 60-day screening period, which had to include between 3 and 16 recorded prodrome events. Headaches had to occur within 1-6 hours in at least 75% of prodrome events. Study subjects were then randomized to 100 mg ubrogepant or placebo for up to 60 days. After their first prodrome event, they entered a 7-day washout period, and then crossed over to the other group until they experienced a second prodrome event.

During the screening period, 81.5% of prodromal events identified by patients were followed by a headache within 1-6 hours of onset. Nearly 10% of the time headache occurred in 1 hour or less, 81.5% between 1 and 6 hours, and 4.5% between 6 and 24 hours after prodrome. Commonly reported prodromal symptoms included sensitivity to light (57.2%), fatigue (50.1%), neck pain (41.9%), sensitivity to sound (33.9%), and dizziness (27.8%).

The study included 247 patients in the first sequence, and 233 in the second sequence. Patient characteristics were similar in both. Ubrogepant treatment led to a greater absence of moderate- or severe-intensity headache within 24 hours of the dose (45.5% vs. 28.6% headache-free; odds ratio [OR], 2.09; P < .0001). They were also more likely to report normal functioning over 24 hours (OR, 1.66; P < .0001) and to have absence of headache within 24 hours (23.7% vs. 13.9%; OR, 1.93; P < .0001).

Between 73% and 75% of participants reported at least mild functional disability before taking medication. Two hours after a dose, ubrogepant led to a higher rate of normal functioning (37.0% vs. 26.1%; P < .001). Ubrogepant had a similar positive effect on sensitivity to light, fatigue, neck pain, sensitivity to sound, and dizziness. Adverse events were higher during ubrogepant treatment (13.2% vs. 9.1%), and included nausea, dizziness, fatigue, and somnolence, all of which were mild. “One is really scraping the barrel [to identify adverse events]. There were no serious adverse events,” said Dr. Goadsby.
 

A unique result?

One questioner asked if other medications used during the prodrome might yield similar results. Dr. Goadsby expressed doubt. “I think the evidence for other treatments is not terribly good. The triptan evidence is really poor. There is no randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a triptan explicitly in promontory symptomatology. There are randomized placebo controlled trials of triptans during the aura phase. The best one was the injected sumatriptan study, and it failed. So, as far as I can see from the randomized-controlled data, triptans don’t do this, and we don’t have good data for nonsteroidals and other therapies,” said Dr. Goadsby.

The researchers showed that you could treat a patient in advance of the headache to actually prevent the headache a significant number of times; it also reduced the prodromal events and it got patients back to normal functioning to a greater extent.

Dr. Goadsby was asked how many patients are typically able to identify prodrome periods on their own. He estimated that about one in three can do it initially. “I think if you teach people how to do this, it becomes very common. I would say four out of five people in my practice are able to talk about this, but you have to introduce the topic. They’ve had [prodrome symptoms], but they haven’t thought about it for a while. This is one of the things where headache doctors can offer real benefit in helping educate patients,” said Dr. Goadsby.

Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the Editorial Board of CNS Drugs. Dr. Goadsby has financial ties to Amgen, Eli Lilly, Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan, Autonomic Technologies Inc., Biohaven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Electrocore, eNeura, Massachusetts Medical Society, MedicoLegal work, Novartis, Oxford University Press, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Trigemina, Up-to-Date, and Wolters Kluwer. He has a patent for headache assigned to eNeura without fee.

AUSTIN – Treatment of migraines with rimegepant is associated with a reduction of butalbital dose and prescriptions, according to a real-world analysis. Butalbital is the only commonly prescribed short-acting barbiturate in the United States, according to Noah Rosen, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Despite its effectiveness, the drug carries a risk of abuse as well as neurologic side effects, and has also been linked to an increase in medication overuse headache, which in turn can affect quality of life and lead to more disability and health care costs. “Although acute treatment recommendations supported by AHS discourage the use of barbiturates for the acute treatment of migraine, butalbital and associated medications are still widely prescribed, so effective, low-risk novel abortive and preventive therapies that have potential barbiturate-sparing characteristics do have the potential to help people with migraine,” said Dr. Rosen during his presentation. He is the program director of neurology at Hofstra Northwell Health, Hempstead, N.Y.

His group previously showed an association between rimegepant initiation and a reduction in opioid use in another real-world analysis.

The present study retrospectively analyzed data from 34,486 patients drawn from the U.S.-based Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data (LAAD) produced by IQVIA, which is an anonymized integrated commercial medical and prescription claims database. The period studied was between November 2015 and November 2022. The median age was 47 and 89% were female. Eligibility criteria included the presence of at least 6 months of baseline data before exposure to rimegepant and at least 6 months of follow-up, at least two rimegepant refills, and at least one butalbital prescription during the baseline period.

During the baseline period, the mean number of milligrams of butalbital dispensed was 1,012, and this dropped to 742 during follow-up (–26.7%). The mean number of butalbital prescription fills dropped from 0.47 to 0.32 (–32.0%). About half of patients (49.4%) had no butalbital refills after starting rimegepant. The researchers also examined triptan use and found no difference. “We saw that it actually made no significant difference with the deflection from baseline or discontinuation if they had been given a triptan or not. This seemed to concur with my own experiences with triptan use and not affecting barbiturate dosing,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

‘Good news’

The results are good news, according to Jason Sico, MD, who comoderated the session. “I remember being a PGY-2 neurology resident and hearing a lecture from Stew Tepper [now professor of medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.] that fiorinal and fioricet were the F words of headache medicine, so it’s really great to see a modality that could lower barbiturate use,” said Dr. Sico, who is an associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rosen responded: “I don’t mean to malign a single chemical, because fioricet has provided many people treatment over time, but with the introduction of newer options, we would hope to see a trend toward that use.”

A listener on the virtual platform asked whether the decline in barbiturate use could be due to education by the provider on the dangers of barbiturate use when rimegepant was prescribed. “This is one of those big limitations of claims data analysis is we can speculate what the influence or the cause is, because this type of data analysis does not show causation. There are many different things that could influence the discontinuation. Education is a huge one, although you would hope that if somebody is prescribed butalbital on a regular basis, that there’s some physician contact or education that’s part of that as well. But it’s possible it plays a role,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

Any strategy to reduce butalbital use in migraine is important

Alan Rapoport, MD, who attended the session, was also asked to comment on the study. “Butalbital-containing medications can help headache pain but have not been approved by the FDA for a migraine indication. They can also decrease anxiety in the migraine patient, but if used frequently, they cause dependency. When used too often, butalbital-containing medications are major causes of medication overuse headache. They’re often used with other acute care medications such as triptans and over-the-counter products, and combinations of these drugs can be even more of a problem because one only needs to use any of these medicines in combination for 10 days a month or more, for at least 3 months, for a doctor to diagnose a patient with medication overuse headache. So any attempt and success to reduce the frequency of taking butalbital-containing medication is important. That can be done by counseling the patient to take fewer tablets per month, but this often does not work. This study shows a good success rate in reducing the use of these medications by treating the patient with rimegepant 75 mg ODT given once every other day. This dose has been approved by the FDA for prevention in migraine, but has not previously been shown as a treatment for overuse of butalbital or medication. Previous studies have shown that rimegepant reduced migraine days per month and the use of acute care medications monthly. It this study, rimegepant decreases the number of butalbital-containing medications taken,” said Dr. Rapoport, who is a clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rosen has financial ties to Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureaus of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN – Treatment of migraines with rimegepant is associated with a reduction of butalbital dose and prescriptions, according to a real-world analysis. Butalbital is the only commonly prescribed short-acting barbiturate in the United States, according to Noah Rosen, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Despite its effectiveness, the drug carries a risk of abuse as well as neurologic side effects, and has also been linked to an increase in medication overuse headache, which in turn can affect quality of life and lead to more disability and health care costs. “Although acute treatment recommendations supported by AHS discourage the use of barbiturates for the acute treatment of migraine, butalbital and associated medications are still widely prescribed, so effective, low-risk novel abortive and preventive therapies that have potential barbiturate-sparing characteristics do have the potential to help people with migraine,” said Dr. Rosen during his presentation. He is the program director of neurology at Hofstra Northwell Health, Hempstead, N.Y.

His group previously showed an association between rimegepant initiation and a reduction in opioid use in another real-world analysis.

The present study retrospectively analyzed data from 34,486 patients drawn from the U.S.-based Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data (LAAD) produced by IQVIA, which is an anonymized integrated commercial medical and prescription claims database. The period studied was between November 2015 and November 2022. The median age was 47 and 89% were female. Eligibility criteria included the presence of at least 6 months of baseline data before exposure to rimegepant and at least 6 months of follow-up, at least two rimegepant refills, and at least one butalbital prescription during the baseline period.

During the baseline period, the mean number of milligrams of butalbital dispensed was 1,012, and this dropped to 742 during follow-up (–26.7%). The mean number of butalbital prescription fills dropped from 0.47 to 0.32 (–32.0%). About half of patients (49.4%) had no butalbital refills after starting rimegepant. The researchers also examined triptan use and found no difference. “We saw that it actually made no significant difference with the deflection from baseline or discontinuation if they had been given a triptan or not. This seemed to concur with my own experiences with triptan use and not affecting barbiturate dosing,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

‘Good news’

The results are good news, according to Jason Sico, MD, who comoderated the session. “I remember being a PGY-2 neurology resident and hearing a lecture from Stew Tepper [now professor of medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.] that fiorinal and fioricet were the F words of headache medicine, so it’s really great to see a modality that could lower barbiturate use,” said Dr. Sico, who is an associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rosen responded: “I don’t mean to malign a single chemical, because fioricet has provided many people treatment over time, but with the introduction of newer options, we would hope to see a trend toward that use.”

A listener on the virtual platform asked whether the decline in barbiturate use could be due to education by the provider on the dangers of barbiturate use when rimegepant was prescribed. “This is one of those big limitations of claims data analysis is we can speculate what the influence or the cause is, because this type of data analysis does not show causation. There are many different things that could influence the discontinuation. Education is a huge one, although you would hope that if somebody is prescribed butalbital on a regular basis, that there’s some physician contact or education that’s part of that as well. But it’s possible it plays a role,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

Any strategy to reduce butalbital use in migraine is important

Alan Rapoport, MD, who attended the session, was also asked to comment on the study. “Butalbital-containing medications can help headache pain but have not been approved by the FDA for a migraine indication. They can also decrease anxiety in the migraine patient, but if used frequently, they cause dependency. When used too often, butalbital-containing medications are major causes of medication overuse headache. They’re often used with other acute care medications such as triptans and over-the-counter products, and combinations of these drugs can be even more of a problem because one only needs to use any of these medicines in combination for 10 days a month or more, for at least 3 months, for a doctor to diagnose a patient with medication overuse headache. So any attempt and success to reduce the frequency of taking butalbital-containing medication is important. That can be done by counseling the patient to take fewer tablets per month, but this often does not work. This study shows a good success rate in reducing the use of these medications by treating the patient with rimegepant 75 mg ODT given once every other day. This dose has been approved by the FDA for prevention in migraine, but has not previously been shown as a treatment for overuse of butalbital or medication. Previous studies have shown that rimegepant reduced migraine days per month and the use of acute care medications monthly. It this study, rimegepant decreases the number of butalbital-containing medications taken,” said Dr. Rapoport, who is a clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rosen has financial ties to Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureaus of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN – Treatment of migraines with rimegepant is associated with a reduction of butalbital dose and prescriptions, according to a real-world analysis. Butalbital is the only commonly prescribed short-acting barbiturate in the United States, according to Noah Rosen, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Despite its effectiveness, the drug carries a risk of abuse as well as neurologic side effects, and has also been linked to an increase in medication overuse headache, which in turn can affect quality of life and lead to more disability and health care costs. “Although acute treatment recommendations supported by AHS discourage the use of barbiturates for the acute treatment of migraine, butalbital and associated medications are still widely prescribed, so effective, low-risk novel abortive and preventive therapies that have potential barbiturate-sparing characteristics do have the potential to help people with migraine,” said Dr. Rosen during his presentation. He is the program director of neurology at Hofstra Northwell Health, Hempstead, N.Y.

His group previously showed an association between rimegepant initiation and a reduction in opioid use in another real-world analysis.

The present study retrospectively analyzed data from 34,486 patients drawn from the U.S.-based Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data (LAAD) produced by IQVIA, which is an anonymized integrated commercial medical and prescription claims database. The period studied was between November 2015 and November 2022. The median age was 47 and 89% were female. Eligibility criteria included the presence of at least 6 months of baseline data before exposure to rimegepant and at least 6 months of follow-up, at least two rimegepant refills, and at least one butalbital prescription during the baseline period.

During the baseline period, the mean number of milligrams of butalbital dispensed was 1,012, and this dropped to 742 during follow-up (–26.7%). The mean number of butalbital prescription fills dropped from 0.47 to 0.32 (–32.0%). About half of patients (49.4%) had no butalbital refills after starting rimegepant. The researchers also examined triptan use and found no difference. “We saw that it actually made no significant difference with the deflection from baseline or discontinuation if they had been given a triptan or not. This seemed to concur with my own experiences with triptan use and not affecting barbiturate dosing,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

‘Good news’

The results are good news, according to Jason Sico, MD, who comoderated the session. “I remember being a PGY-2 neurology resident and hearing a lecture from Stew Tepper [now professor of medicine at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.] that fiorinal and fioricet were the F words of headache medicine, so it’s really great to see a modality that could lower barbiturate use,” said Dr. Sico, who is an associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Rosen responded: “I don’t mean to malign a single chemical, because fioricet has provided many people treatment over time, but with the introduction of newer options, we would hope to see a trend toward that use.”

A listener on the virtual platform asked whether the decline in barbiturate use could be due to education by the provider on the dangers of barbiturate use when rimegepant was prescribed. “This is one of those big limitations of claims data analysis is we can speculate what the influence or the cause is, because this type of data analysis does not show causation. There are many different things that could influence the discontinuation. Education is a huge one, although you would hope that if somebody is prescribed butalbital on a regular basis, that there’s some physician contact or education that’s part of that as well. But it’s possible it plays a role,” said Dr. Rosen.
 

Any strategy to reduce butalbital use in migraine is important

Alan Rapoport, MD, who attended the session, was also asked to comment on the study. “Butalbital-containing medications can help headache pain but have not been approved by the FDA for a migraine indication. They can also decrease anxiety in the migraine patient, but if used frequently, they cause dependency. When used too often, butalbital-containing medications are major causes of medication overuse headache. They’re often used with other acute care medications such as triptans and over-the-counter products, and combinations of these drugs can be even more of a problem because one only needs to use any of these medicines in combination for 10 days a month or more, for at least 3 months, for a doctor to diagnose a patient with medication overuse headache. So any attempt and success to reduce the frequency of taking butalbital-containing medication is important. That can be done by counseling the patient to take fewer tablets per month, but this often does not work. This study shows a good success rate in reducing the use of these medications by treating the patient with rimegepant 75 mg ODT given once every other day. This dose has been approved by the FDA for prevention in migraine, but has not previously been shown as a treatment for overuse of butalbital or medication. Previous studies have shown that rimegepant reduced migraine days per month and the use of acute care medications monthly. It this study, rimegepant decreases the number of butalbital-containing medications taken,” said Dr. Rapoport, who is a clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rosen has financial ties to Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Sico did not disclose any conflicts of interest. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureaus of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. He is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.