Will Pass

For patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), adding avadomide to standard therapy may reduce the likelihood of treatment failure, based on phase 1 results.

The regimen was well tolerated and had a complete response rate of 79%, reported lead author Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Newly diagnosed DLBCL “remains a clinical challenge,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said, noting a treatment failure rate of 30%-50% for standard rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 21 days (R-CHOP-21), and worse outcomes among patients with high-risk disease.

In an effort to boost efficacy, the investigators turned to avadomide, a cereblon E3 ligase modulator, which previously demonstrated a complete response rate of 11% when used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

The present phase 1 data included 35 adults with newly diagnosed DLBCL who had measurable lesions of at least 2.0 cm and International Prognostic Indices (IPI) between 3-5. Specifically, 51% of patients had an IPI of 3, while 49% had an IPI of 4-5.

All patients received standard R-CHOP with pegfilgrastim (to stimulate white blood cell growth), plus escalating doses of oral avadomide from 1-3 mg. Treatment was delivered, when tolerated, for up to six 21-day cycles. Depending on dose level, avadomide was given during either 2 or 3 out of 3 weeks. During treatment weeks, avadomide was given on 5 of 7 days.

The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and complete response rate. Secondary objectives included biomarkers and additional efficacy measures, while exploratory analyses were also conducted to assess pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Out of 34 patients evaluable for efficacy, the complete response rate was 79% and the objective response rate was 88%. After a median follow-up of 10 months, the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 80%.

“The combination showed promising efficacy,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

The regimen was also well tolerated and demonstrated an “acceptable safety profile consistent with either therapy alone,” Dr. Mehta-Shah added.

Most patients (91%) completed all six cycles of therapy. Median relative total dose intensities were 99% and 95% for avadomide and R-CHOP-21, respectively. Approximately two out of three patients (66%) required dose interruptions of avadomide, and 9% required dose reductions because of adverse events.

Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including sepsis, febrile neutropenia caused by skin infections, febrile neutropenia with hypotension, febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, and neutropenia with bacterial hepatic infection. Based on these findings, the recommended phase 2 dose of avadomide was determined to be 3 mg given during 2 out of 3 weeks.

About 74% of patients had grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common of which were neutropenia (54%), anemia (20%), leukopenia (20%), lymphopenia (14%), hypophosphatemia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (11%).

During the second cycle of therapy, one patient died because of concurrent pneumonia. After completion of therapy, two patients developed cardiac failure, and data gathered after each cycle showed that five patients had developed elevated levels of troponin or brain natriuretic peptide.

Flow cytometry showed that avadomide had proimmunomodulatory effects, including expansion of memory T-cell populations and enhanced proliferation of T cells and NK cells. The magnitude of this latter increase was greater than that observed in previous studies involving R-CHOP and durvalumab, Dr. Mehta-Shah noted.

“We look forward to following up on this data regarding the progression-free survival over a longer period of time,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said. “The results of this trial indicate that further evaluation of cereblon-modulating compounds combined with immunochemotherapy for patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is worthy of further exploration.”

Invited discussant Edward Yeh, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, called cereblon modulators such as avadomide and thalidomide a “very exciting class of anticancer therapy.”

In a virtual presentation, Dr. Yeh noted that cereblon modulators have several advantages, including “good absorption, distribution, metabolism, [and] elimination,” plus relatively low susceptibility to mutation-directed drug resistance.

Despite some drawbacks, including difficulty to design and synthesize, Dr. Yeh suggested that this drug class may play a bigger role over time.

“We’re expecting more cancer therapy to come to fruition through the utilization of this posttranslational, protein-modification pathway,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Celgene. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, AstraZeneca, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 3501.

For patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), adding avadomide to standard therapy may reduce the likelihood of treatment failure, based on phase 1 results.

The regimen was well tolerated and had a complete response rate of 79%, reported lead author Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Newly diagnosed DLBCL “remains a clinical challenge,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said, noting a treatment failure rate of 30%-50% for standard rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 21 days (R-CHOP-21), and worse outcomes among patients with high-risk disease.

In an effort to boost efficacy, the investigators turned to avadomide, a cereblon E3 ligase modulator, which previously demonstrated a complete response rate of 11% when used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

The present phase 1 data included 35 adults with newly diagnosed DLBCL who had measurable lesions of at least 2.0 cm and International Prognostic Indices (IPI) between 3-5. Specifically, 51% of patients had an IPI of 3, while 49% had an IPI of 4-5.

All patients received standard R-CHOP with pegfilgrastim (to stimulate white blood cell growth), plus escalating doses of oral avadomide from 1-3 mg. Treatment was delivered, when tolerated, for up to six 21-day cycles. Depending on dose level, avadomide was given during either 2 or 3 out of 3 weeks. During treatment weeks, avadomide was given on 5 of 7 days.

The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and complete response rate. Secondary objectives included biomarkers and additional efficacy measures, while exploratory analyses were also conducted to assess pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Out of 34 patients evaluable for efficacy, the complete response rate was 79% and the objective response rate was 88%. After a median follow-up of 10 months, the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 80%.

“The combination showed promising efficacy,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

The regimen was also well tolerated and demonstrated an “acceptable safety profile consistent with either therapy alone,” Dr. Mehta-Shah added.

Most patients (91%) completed all six cycles of therapy. Median relative total dose intensities were 99% and 95% for avadomide and R-CHOP-21, respectively. Approximately two out of three patients (66%) required dose interruptions of avadomide, and 9% required dose reductions because of adverse events.

Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including sepsis, febrile neutropenia caused by skin infections, febrile neutropenia with hypotension, febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, and neutropenia with bacterial hepatic infection. Based on these findings, the recommended phase 2 dose of avadomide was determined to be 3 mg given during 2 out of 3 weeks.

About 74% of patients had grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common of which were neutropenia (54%), anemia (20%), leukopenia (20%), lymphopenia (14%), hypophosphatemia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (11%).

During the second cycle of therapy, one patient died because of concurrent pneumonia. After completion of therapy, two patients developed cardiac failure, and data gathered after each cycle showed that five patients had developed elevated levels of troponin or brain natriuretic peptide.

Flow cytometry showed that avadomide had proimmunomodulatory effects, including expansion of memory T-cell populations and enhanced proliferation of T cells and NK cells. The magnitude of this latter increase was greater than that observed in previous studies involving R-CHOP and durvalumab, Dr. Mehta-Shah noted.

“We look forward to following up on this data regarding the progression-free survival over a longer period of time,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said. “The results of this trial indicate that further evaluation of cereblon-modulating compounds combined with immunochemotherapy for patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is worthy of further exploration.”

Invited discussant Edward Yeh, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, called cereblon modulators such as avadomide and thalidomide a “very exciting class of anticancer therapy.”

In a virtual presentation, Dr. Yeh noted that cereblon modulators have several advantages, including “good absorption, distribution, metabolism, [and] elimination,” plus relatively low susceptibility to mutation-directed drug resistance.

Despite some drawbacks, including difficulty to design and synthesize, Dr. Yeh suggested that this drug class may play a bigger role over time.

“We’re expecting more cancer therapy to come to fruition through the utilization of this posttranslational, protein-modification pathway,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Celgene. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, AstraZeneca, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 3501.

For patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), adding avadomide to standard therapy may reduce the likelihood of treatment failure, based on phase 1 results.

The regimen was well tolerated and had a complete response rate of 79%, reported lead author Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Newly diagnosed DLBCL “remains a clinical challenge,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said, noting a treatment failure rate of 30%-50% for standard rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 21 days (R-CHOP-21), and worse outcomes among patients with high-risk disease.

In an effort to boost efficacy, the investigators turned to avadomide, a cereblon E3 ligase modulator, which previously demonstrated a complete response rate of 11% when used as monotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

The present phase 1 data included 35 adults with newly diagnosed DLBCL who had measurable lesions of at least 2.0 cm and International Prognostic Indices (IPI) between 3-5. Specifically, 51% of patients had an IPI of 3, while 49% had an IPI of 4-5.

All patients received standard R-CHOP with pegfilgrastim (to stimulate white blood cell growth), plus escalating doses of oral avadomide from 1-3 mg. Treatment was delivered, when tolerated, for up to six 21-day cycles. Depending on dose level, avadomide was given during either 2 or 3 out of 3 weeks. During treatment weeks, avadomide was given on 5 of 7 days.

The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and complete response rate. Secondary objectives included biomarkers and additional efficacy measures, while exploratory analyses were also conducted to assess pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Out of 34 patients evaluable for efficacy, the complete response rate was 79% and the objective response rate was 88%. After a median follow-up of 10 months, the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 80%.

“The combination showed promising efficacy,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.

The regimen was also well tolerated and demonstrated an “acceptable safety profile consistent with either therapy alone,” Dr. Mehta-Shah added.

Most patients (91%) completed all six cycles of therapy. Median relative total dose intensities were 99% and 95% for avadomide and R-CHOP-21, respectively. Approximately two out of three patients (66%) required dose interruptions of avadomide, and 9% required dose reductions because of adverse events.

Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including sepsis, febrile neutropenia caused by skin infections, febrile neutropenia with hypotension, febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, and neutropenia with bacterial hepatic infection. Based on these findings, the recommended phase 2 dose of avadomide was determined to be 3 mg given during 2 out of 3 weeks.

About 74% of patients had grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common of which were neutropenia (54%), anemia (20%), leukopenia (20%), lymphopenia (14%), hypophosphatemia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (11%).

During the second cycle of therapy, one patient died because of concurrent pneumonia. After completion of therapy, two patients developed cardiac failure, and data gathered after each cycle showed that five patients had developed elevated levels of troponin or brain natriuretic peptide.

Flow cytometry showed that avadomide had proimmunomodulatory effects, including expansion of memory T-cell populations and enhanced proliferation of T cells and NK cells. The magnitude of this latter increase was greater than that observed in previous studies involving R-CHOP and durvalumab, Dr. Mehta-Shah noted.

“We look forward to following up on this data regarding the progression-free survival over a longer period of time,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said. “The results of this trial indicate that further evaluation of cereblon-modulating compounds combined with immunochemotherapy for patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is worthy of further exploration.”

Invited discussant Edward Yeh, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, called cereblon modulators such as avadomide and thalidomide a “very exciting class of anticancer therapy.”

In a virtual presentation, Dr. Yeh noted that cereblon modulators have several advantages, including “good absorption, distribution, metabolism, [and] elimination,” plus relatively low susceptibility to mutation-directed drug resistance.

Despite some drawbacks, including difficulty to design and synthesize, Dr. Yeh suggested that this drug class may play a bigger role over time.

“We’re expecting more cancer therapy to come to fruition through the utilization of this posttranslational, protein-modification pathway,” he concluded.

The study was funded by Celgene. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, AstraZeneca, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 3501.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.

For patients with BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding veliparib to cisplatin chemotherapy may extend survival, based on results from the phase 3 SWOG S1416 trial.

All patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when they received veliparib plus cisplatin. Previously untreated patients with BRCA-like TNBC had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) as well.

The results are a “very positive step towards expanding the role of PARP inhibitors beyond germline BRCA in breast cancer,” reported lead author Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

According to Dr. Sharma, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for certain patients with BRCA wild-type ovarian cancer, such as those with homologous recombination deficiency, which also occurs in approximately half of patients with BRCA wild-type TNBC. In TNBC, homologous recombination deficiency and other aberrations lead to a BRCA-like disease phenotype, which may respond to PARP inhibitors.

Dr. Sharma noted that previous attempts to use PARP inhibitors for BRCA wild-type TNBC have revealed obstacles, such as the inefficacy of PARP inhibitor monotherapy and dose-limiting myelosuppression when PARP inhibitors were added to chemotherapy. The issue of bone marrow toxicity may be mitigated by veliparib, which has minimal PARP-trapping activity, she explained.

“A phase 1 trial has demonstrated that adequate doses of cisplatin can be delivered safely in combination with the near-maximal single-agent dose of veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC,” Dr. Sharma said.

She and her colleagues put this finding to the test in a phase 3 trial that enrolled 335 patients with metastatic and/or loco-regionally recurrent TNBC or BRCA-associated HER2-negative breast cancer. Patients could be previously untreated or have received one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Of the patients enrolled, 321 met eligibility criteria, 294 had germline BRCA testing, and 209 had BRCA-like assessment.

Patients were divided into the following groups: germline BRCA-associated disease (n = 37), BRCA-like disease (n = 99), non-BRCA-like disease (n = 110), and unclassified (n = 75).

In each group, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive cisplatin (75 mg/m²on day 1) plus veliparib (300 mg twice daily on days 1-14) every 3 weeks, or cisplatin with placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

Among patients with BRCA-like disease, there was a significant improvement in PFS and a trend toward improved OS when veliparib was added to cisplatin. The median PFS was 5.9 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .006). The median OS was 14.0 months and 12.1 months, respectively (P = .067).

Among patients with previously untreated BRCA-like disease, there were significant improvements in both PFS and OS.

The median PFS in this group was 6.1 months with veliparib and 4.2 months with placebo (P = .008). The 12-month PFS rates were 23% and 3%, respectively.

The median OS in this group was 17.8 months with veliparib and 10.3 months with placebo (P = .048). The 24-month OS rates were 43% and 20%, respectively.

There were no survival benefits with veliparib among patients with unclassified disease, non-BRCA-like disease, or BRCA-associated disease.

Dr. Sharma noted that the lack of significant improvement in the BRCA-associated group was likely due to the small sample size. “FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of germline BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer during the course of this trial impacted accrual to this group,” she said.

Veliparib was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities, including neutropenia (46% vs. 19%), leukopenia (27% vs. 7%), anemia (23% vs. 7%), and thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 3%).

Dr. Sharma said results from this trial should prompt further research. “The combination of veliparib plus cisplatin warrants further evaluation in larger randomized trials for patients with BRCA-like phenotype TNBC,” she said.

Invited discussant Catherine M. Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, called the trial “an ambitious study” that has created a “valuable tissue bank” for future translational research. She agreed that more work is necessary.

“Further research is needed to identify the optimal homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers critical in the early treatment-naive and in the advanced treatment-exposed disease settings,” Dr. Kelly said.

SWOG S1416 was funded by the National Institutes of Health and AbbVie. Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and other companies. Dr. Kelly reported affiliations with Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and MSD Oncology.

SOURCE: Sharma et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 1001.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), 1 year of capecitabine treatment after standard therapy may lead to significantly better disease-free survival (DFS), but not overall survival (OS), according to results of a phase 3 trial.

Patients who received metronomic capecitabine maintenance had significantly higher rates of 5-year DFS and distant DFS, but not OS, when compared with patients who did not receive capecitabine, reported Xi Wang, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“TNBC has the worst outcomes among all subtypes of breast cancer,” Dr. Wang said. “Effective strategies to reduce risk of relapse are a critical clinical need.”

He went on to describe capecitabine as a “potential ideal drug for metronomic administration,” particularly among patients with high risk of distant metastasis.

With that in mind, Dr. Wang and colleagues tested metronomic capecitabine maintenance in the phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial. The trial included 434 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. They had undergone standard therapy, which included surgery, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.

Patients were randomized to receive capecitabine at 650 mg/m² twice daily for 1 year (n = 221) or undergo observation (n = 213). The primary endpoint was DFS, while secondary endpoints included safety, distant DFS, and OS.

According to Dr. Wang, the two patient groups were “well balanced,” with similar baseline characteristics. Most patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy (93%), had histological grade 3 tumors (71%-74%), had a Ki-67 index of at least 30% (73%-80%), had negative lymph node status (61%-62%), had a tumor size of 2.1-5 cm (55%-58%), and/or pathologic stage II disease (54%-55%).
 

Survival and safety

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, the median 5-year DFS rate was 83% in the capecitabine group, compared with 73% in the observation group (P = .027). Similarly, capecitabine use correlated with a significantly better rate of distant DFS (85% vs. 76%; P = .016).

Although the capecitabine group demonstrated a slight trend toward improved OS at 5 years, this finding was not statistically significant (86% vs. 81%; P = .203).

Capecitabine was generally well tolerated, with 91% of patients completing 1 year of therapy, and 75% completing therapy at the full dose.

Almost half of patients in the capecitabine group experienced hand-foot syndrome (45%), and one in four developed leukopenia (24%). Less common adverse events included hyperbilirubinemia (13%), gastrointestinal pain (7%), and elevated serum transaminases (5%). No unexpected serious adverse events occurred.
 

Effects on practice

Amy Tiersten, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggested these findings may lead to broader use of capecitabine among patients with TNBC.

“[This is a] very exciting study showing an impressive disease-free survival benefit in the adjuvant setting for capecitabine in patients with early stage TNBC,” Dr. Tiersten said. “Presently, we only have positive data for capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but this current study now suggests that this benefit could extend to all comers.”

Dr. Tiersten advised that the medical community stay tuned, since longer-term data may provide a clearer picture of survival benefit.

“It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on overall survival with further follow-up,” she said.

According to invited discussant Naamit Kurshan Gerber, MD, of New York University, the results support previous findings from the CREATE-X trial, along with meta-analyses that have shown a “preferential benefit” of capecitabine when used to treat TNBC, compared with estrogen receptor–positive disease.

Still, Dr. Gerber noted that, for most patients, the findings from the SYSUCC-001 trial are unlikely to influence clinical decision-making since most patients with TNBC receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by treatment based on pathologic response. However, she also suggested that, after peer review, the findings could influence treatment for a select few.

“For the small population of patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for higher-stage TNBC and who would have met eligibility criteria, this approach may be considered,” Dr. Gerber said.

The study was funded by the Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gerber reported a relationship with OncLive. Dr. Tiersten reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wang X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 507.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), 1 year of capecitabine treatment after standard therapy may lead to significantly better disease-free survival (DFS), but not overall survival (OS), according to results of a phase 3 trial.

Patients who received metronomic capecitabine maintenance had significantly higher rates of 5-year DFS and distant DFS, but not OS, when compared with patients who did not receive capecitabine, reported Xi Wang, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“TNBC has the worst outcomes among all subtypes of breast cancer,” Dr. Wang said. “Effective strategies to reduce risk of relapse are a critical clinical need.”

He went on to describe capecitabine as a “potential ideal drug for metronomic administration,” particularly among patients with high risk of distant metastasis.

With that in mind, Dr. Wang and colleagues tested metronomic capecitabine maintenance in the phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial. The trial included 434 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. They had undergone standard therapy, which included surgery, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.

Patients were randomized to receive capecitabine at 650 mg/m² twice daily for 1 year (n = 221) or undergo observation (n = 213). The primary endpoint was DFS, while secondary endpoints included safety, distant DFS, and OS.

According to Dr. Wang, the two patient groups were “well balanced,” with similar baseline characteristics. Most patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy (93%), had histological grade 3 tumors (71%-74%), had a Ki-67 index of at least 30% (73%-80%), had negative lymph node status (61%-62%), had a tumor size of 2.1-5 cm (55%-58%), and/or pathologic stage II disease (54%-55%).
 

Survival and safety

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, the median 5-year DFS rate was 83% in the capecitabine group, compared with 73% in the observation group (P = .027). Similarly, capecitabine use correlated with a significantly better rate of distant DFS (85% vs. 76%; P = .016).

Although the capecitabine group demonstrated a slight trend toward improved OS at 5 years, this finding was not statistically significant (86% vs. 81%; P = .203).

Capecitabine was generally well tolerated, with 91% of patients completing 1 year of therapy, and 75% completing therapy at the full dose.

Almost half of patients in the capecitabine group experienced hand-foot syndrome (45%), and one in four developed leukopenia (24%). Less common adverse events included hyperbilirubinemia (13%), gastrointestinal pain (7%), and elevated serum transaminases (5%). No unexpected serious adverse events occurred.
 

Effects on practice

Amy Tiersten, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggested these findings may lead to broader use of capecitabine among patients with TNBC.

“[This is a] very exciting study showing an impressive disease-free survival benefit in the adjuvant setting for capecitabine in patients with early stage TNBC,” Dr. Tiersten said. “Presently, we only have positive data for capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but this current study now suggests that this benefit could extend to all comers.”

Dr. Tiersten advised that the medical community stay tuned, since longer-term data may provide a clearer picture of survival benefit.

“It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on overall survival with further follow-up,” she said.

According to invited discussant Naamit Kurshan Gerber, MD, of New York University, the results support previous findings from the CREATE-X trial, along with meta-analyses that have shown a “preferential benefit” of capecitabine when used to treat TNBC, compared with estrogen receptor–positive disease.

Still, Dr. Gerber noted that, for most patients, the findings from the SYSUCC-001 trial are unlikely to influence clinical decision-making since most patients with TNBC receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by treatment based on pathologic response. However, she also suggested that, after peer review, the findings could influence treatment for a select few.

“For the small population of patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for higher-stage TNBC and who would have met eligibility criteria, this approach may be considered,” Dr. Gerber said.

The study was funded by the Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gerber reported a relationship with OncLive. Dr. Tiersten reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wang X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 507.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), 1 year of capecitabine treatment after standard therapy may lead to significantly better disease-free survival (DFS), but not overall survival (OS), according to results of a phase 3 trial.

Patients who received metronomic capecitabine maintenance had significantly higher rates of 5-year DFS and distant DFS, but not OS, when compared with patients who did not receive capecitabine, reported Xi Wang, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, who presented the findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“TNBC has the worst outcomes among all subtypes of breast cancer,” Dr. Wang said. “Effective strategies to reduce risk of relapse are a critical clinical need.”

He went on to describe capecitabine as a “potential ideal drug for metronomic administration,” particularly among patients with high risk of distant metastasis.

With that in mind, Dr. Wang and colleagues tested metronomic capecitabine maintenance in the phase 3 SYSUCC-001 trial. The trial included 434 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. They had undergone standard therapy, which included surgery, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.

Patients were randomized to receive capecitabine at 650 mg/m² twice daily for 1 year (n = 221) or undergo observation (n = 213). The primary endpoint was DFS, while secondary endpoints included safety, distant DFS, and OS.

According to Dr. Wang, the two patient groups were “well balanced,” with similar baseline characteristics. Most patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy (93%), had histological grade 3 tumors (71%-74%), had a Ki-67 index of at least 30% (73%-80%), had negative lymph node status (61%-62%), had a tumor size of 2.1-5 cm (55%-58%), and/or pathologic stage II disease (54%-55%).
 

Survival and safety

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, the median 5-year DFS rate was 83% in the capecitabine group, compared with 73% in the observation group (P = .027). Similarly, capecitabine use correlated with a significantly better rate of distant DFS (85% vs. 76%; P = .016).

Although the capecitabine group demonstrated a slight trend toward improved OS at 5 years, this finding was not statistically significant (86% vs. 81%; P = .203).

Capecitabine was generally well tolerated, with 91% of patients completing 1 year of therapy, and 75% completing therapy at the full dose.

Almost half of patients in the capecitabine group experienced hand-foot syndrome (45%), and one in four developed leukopenia (24%). Less common adverse events included hyperbilirubinemia (13%), gastrointestinal pain (7%), and elevated serum transaminases (5%). No unexpected serious adverse events occurred.
 

Effects on practice

Amy Tiersten, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggested these findings may lead to broader use of capecitabine among patients with TNBC.

“[This is a] very exciting study showing an impressive disease-free survival benefit in the adjuvant setting for capecitabine in patients with early stage TNBC,” Dr. Tiersten said. “Presently, we only have positive data for capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, but this current study now suggests that this benefit could extend to all comers.”

Dr. Tiersten advised that the medical community stay tuned, since longer-term data may provide a clearer picture of survival benefit.

“It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on overall survival with further follow-up,” she said.

According to invited discussant Naamit Kurshan Gerber, MD, of New York University, the results support previous findings from the CREATE-X trial, along with meta-analyses that have shown a “preferential benefit” of capecitabine when used to treat TNBC, compared with estrogen receptor–positive disease.

Still, Dr. Gerber noted that, for most patients, the findings from the SYSUCC-001 trial are unlikely to influence clinical decision-making since most patients with TNBC receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by treatment based on pathologic response. However, she also suggested that, after peer review, the findings could influence treatment for a select few.

“For the small population of patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for higher-stage TNBC and who would have met eligibility criteria, this approach may be considered,” Dr. Gerber said.

The study was funded by the Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gerber reported a relationship with OncLive. Dr. Tiersten reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wang X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 507.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

Check out the AGA COVID-19 Resource Library for new clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources, including recent guidance on how to treat patients with IBD during the pandemic, at www.gastro.org/covid.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

Check out the AGA COVID-19 Resource Library for new clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources, including recent guidance on how to treat patients with IBD during the pandemic, at www.gastro.org/covid.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

Check out the AGA COVID-19 Resource Library for new clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources, including recent guidance on how to treat patients with IBD during the pandemic, at www.gastro.org/covid.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who develop coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), corticosteroid use may significantly increase risk of severe disease, according to data from more than 500 patients.

Use of sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) also increased risk of severe COVID-19, albeit to a lesser degree, reported co-lead authors Erica J. Brenner, MD, of University of North Carolina Children’s Hospital, Chapel Hill, and Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

In contrast, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers were not an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

“As TNF antagonists are the most commonly prescribed biologic therapy for patients with IBD, these initial findings should be reassuring to the large number of patients receiving TNF antagonist therapy and support their continued use during this current pandemic,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

These conclusions were drawn from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a large registry actively collecting data from clinicians around the world.

In the present analysis, which involved 525 patients from 33 countries, the investigators searched for independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Various factors were tested through multivariable regression, including age, comorbidities, usage of specific medications, and more.

The primary outcome was defined by a composite of hospitalization, ventilator use, or death, while secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization or death, as well as death alone.

The analysis revealed that patients receiving corticosteroids had an adjusted odds ratio of 6.87 (95% confidence interval, 2.30-20.51) for severe COVID-19, with increased risks also detected for both secondary outcomes. In contrast, TNF antagonist use was not significantly associated with the primary outcome; in fact, a possible protective effect was detected for hospitalization or death (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.96).

The investigators noted that the above findings aligned with extensive literature concerning infectious complications with corticosteroid use and “more recent commentary” surrounding TNF antagonists. Similarly, increased age and the presence of at least two comorbidities were each independently associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, both of which are correlations that have been previously described.

But the threefold increased risk of severe COVID-19 associated with use of sulfasalazine or 5-ASAs (aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.28-7.71) was a “surprising” finding, the investigators noted.

“In a direct comparison, we observed that 5-ASA/sulfasalazine–treated patients fared worse than those treated with TNF inhibitors,” the investigators wrote. “Although we cannot exclude unmeasured confounding, further exploration of biological mechanisms is warranted.”

David T. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago agreed that the finding deserves further investigation, particularly since sulfasalazine and 5-ASAs represent the second most commonly prescribed medication class for IBD.

“The risk with 5-ASAs is of interest but not well explained by what we know about the safety or the mechanism of these therapies,” Dr. Rubin said. “Clearly, more work is needed.”

The risks associated with corticosteroids were particularly concerning, Dr. Rubin said, because 10%-20% of patients with IBD may be taking corticosteroids at any given time.

“Steroids are still the number one prescribed therapy for Crohn’s and colitis,” he said.

Still, Dr. Rubin advised against abrupt changes to drug regimens, especially if they are effectively controlling IBD.

“Patients should stay on their existing therapies and stay in remission,” Dr. Rubin said. “If you stop your therapies … you are more likely to relapse. When you relapse, you’re more likely to need steroids as a rescue therapy … or end up in the hospital, and those are not places we want you to be.”

Despite the risks associated with steroids and sulfasalazine/5-ASAs, Dr. Rubin had an optimistic take on the study, calling the findings “very reassuring” because they support continued usage of TNF inhibitors and other biologic agents during the pandemic. He also noted that the SECURE-IBD registry, which he has contributed to, represents “an extraordinary effort” from around the world.

“[This is] an unprecedented collaboration across a scale and timeframe that has really never been seen before in our field, and I would hazard a guess that it’s probably never been seen in most other fields right now,” he said.

Clinicians seeking more information about managing patients with IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic can find guidance in the recent AGA practice update, of which Dr. Rubin was the lead author. Clinicians who would like to contribute to the SECURE-IBD registry may do so at covidibd.org. The registry now includes more than 1,000 patients.

The study was funded by Clinical and Translational Science Award grants through Dr. Ungaro. The investigators disclosed relationships with Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Rubin disclosed relationships with Gilead, Eli Lilly, Shire, and others.

SOURCE: Brenner EJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.032.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Despite an increasing rate of obesity in the United States, sleeve gastrectomy and postoperative antiobesity pharmacotherapy remain significantly underutilized, according to investigators.

A retrospective study involving almost 3 million adults with obesity found that only 0.94% had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, with 5.6% of those receiving weight-loss drugs after discharge, reported lead author Raj Shah, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, and colleagues.

“While obesity has increased exponentially in the past decade, the trends of bariatric procedures and postoperative pharmacotherapy in this timeline is not well established,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

According to coauthor Abbinaya Elangovan, MD, of MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, existing data suggest a practice gap.

“We know from published studies that antiobesity measures – both surgical and pharmacotherapeutic – do not match the rates of obesity,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We wanted to see how many of the morbidly obese [patients] who get bariatric surgery get started on antiobesity pharmacotherapy. We selected sleeve gastrectomy, as that is the most common bariatric procedure performed in the United States in recent times.”

The investigators began by retrospectively screening 2,717,000 individuals with a body mass index (in kg/m₂) of at least 40 who entered the IBM Explorys database from 2010 to 2019. Out of this group, 25,540 individuals (0.94%) had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Annual rates of the procedure increased from 0.06% in 2010 to 0.4% in 2019 (P < .0001).

Of the 25,540 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 1,440 (5.6%) were prescribed antiobesity medication after surgery, with about half (47%) of these prescriptions written within a year. The most common medication was phentermine (66%), followed by bupropion/naltrexone (16%) and phentermine/topiramate (14.4%).

Dr. Elangovan said that the rates of surgery and antiobesity pharmacotherapy found in the study were “sparse” compared with rates of obesity.

“[Future studies need] to find the barriers to antiobesity pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We know from some of the published studies that there are differences in provider perceptions, as well as patient populations who get the therapy.”

The present analysis showed that women, African Americans, and patients with commercial insurance were significantly more likely to receive postoperative weight-loss medications than other patient subgroups.

“I think insurance could be a potential concern,” Dr. Elangovan said. “This has been shown previously in the literature.” She also suggested that women may be accessing obesity-related health care more often than men.

Discussing steps to improve interventions for patients with obesity, Dr. Elangovan emphasized the amount of data supporting antiobesity pharmacotherapy.

“We know from studies published so far that combining pharmacotherapy with behavioral modifications has a greater percentage of success, compared to behavioral modifications by themselves,” Dr. Elangovan said.

According to Dr. Elangovan, primary care providers play a key role in connecting obese patients with the treatments they need, requiring familiarity with existing guidelines.

“It helps if practicing clinicians, especially primary care providers, are familiar with bariatric surgery criteria and institution policies,” Dr. Elangovan said. “It has been shown in some studies that limited experience in prescribing and concern for adverse reactions could affect the prescription of antiobesity pharmacotherapy. Targeted interventions such as educational programs may increase the appropriate usage of medications.”

Dr. Smith disclosed a relationship with US Endoscopy.

SOURCE: Shah R et al. DDW 2020, Abstract 791.

Despite an increasing rate of obesity in the United States, sleeve gastrectomy and postoperative antiobesity pharmacotherapy remain significantly underutilized, according to investigators.

A retrospective study involving almost 3 million adults with obesity found that only 0.94% had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, with 5.6% of those receiving weight-loss drugs after discharge, reported lead author Raj Shah, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, and colleagues.

“While obesity has increased exponentially in the past decade, the trends of bariatric procedures and postoperative pharmacotherapy in this timeline is not well established,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

According to coauthor Abbinaya Elangovan, MD, of MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, existing data suggest a practice gap.

“We know from published studies that antiobesity measures – both surgical and pharmacotherapeutic – do not match the rates of obesity,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We wanted to see how many of the morbidly obese [patients] who get bariatric surgery get started on antiobesity pharmacotherapy. We selected sleeve gastrectomy, as that is the most common bariatric procedure performed in the United States in recent times.”

The investigators began by retrospectively screening 2,717,000 individuals with a body mass index (in kg/m₂) of at least 40 who entered the IBM Explorys database from 2010 to 2019. Out of this group, 25,540 individuals (0.94%) had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Annual rates of the procedure increased from 0.06% in 2010 to 0.4% in 2019 (P < .0001).

Of the 25,540 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 1,440 (5.6%) were prescribed antiobesity medication after surgery, with about half (47%) of these prescriptions written within a year. The most common medication was phentermine (66%), followed by bupropion/naltrexone (16%) and phentermine/topiramate (14.4%).

Dr. Elangovan said that the rates of surgery and antiobesity pharmacotherapy found in the study were “sparse” compared with rates of obesity.

“[Future studies need] to find the barriers to antiobesity pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We know from some of the published studies that there are differences in provider perceptions, as well as patient populations who get the therapy.”

The present analysis showed that women, African Americans, and patients with commercial insurance were significantly more likely to receive postoperative weight-loss medications than other patient subgroups.

“I think insurance could be a potential concern,” Dr. Elangovan said. “This has been shown previously in the literature.” She also suggested that women may be accessing obesity-related health care more often than men.

Discussing steps to improve interventions for patients with obesity, Dr. Elangovan emphasized the amount of data supporting antiobesity pharmacotherapy.

“We know from studies published so far that combining pharmacotherapy with behavioral modifications has a greater percentage of success, compared to behavioral modifications by themselves,” Dr. Elangovan said.

According to Dr. Elangovan, primary care providers play a key role in connecting obese patients with the treatments they need, requiring familiarity with existing guidelines.

“It helps if practicing clinicians, especially primary care providers, are familiar with bariatric surgery criteria and institution policies,” Dr. Elangovan said. “It has been shown in some studies that limited experience in prescribing and concern for adverse reactions could affect the prescription of antiobesity pharmacotherapy. Targeted interventions such as educational programs may increase the appropriate usage of medications.”

Dr. Smith disclosed a relationship with US Endoscopy.

SOURCE: Shah R et al. DDW 2020, Abstract 791.

Despite an increasing rate of obesity in the United States, sleeve gastrectomy and postoperative antiobesity pharmacotherapy remain significantly underutilized, according to investigators.

A retrospective study involving almost 3 million adults with obesity found that only 0.94% had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, with 5.6% of those receiving weight-loss drugs after discharge, reported lead author Raj Shah, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, and colleagues.

“While obesity has increased exponentially in the past decade, the trends of bariatric procedures and postoperative pharmacotherapy in this timeline is not well established,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

According to coauthor Abbinaya Elangovan, MD, of MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, existing data suggest a practice gap.

“We know from published studies that antiobesity measures – both surgical and pharmacotherapeutic – do not match the rates of obesity,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We wanted to see how many of the morbidly obese [patients] who get bariatric surgery get started on antiobesity pharmacotherapy. We selected sleeve gastrectomy, as that is the most common bariatric procedure performed in the United States in recent times.”

The investigators began by retrospectively screening 2,717,000 individuals with a body mass index (in kg/m₂) of at least 40 who entered the IBM Explorys database from 2010 to 2019. Out of this group, 25,540 individuals (0.94%) had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Annual rates of the procedure increased from 0.06% in 2010 to 0.4% in 2019 (P < .0001).

Of the 25,540 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 1,440 (5.6%) were prescribed antiobesity medication after surgery, with about half (47%) of these prescriptions written within a year. The most common medication was phentermine (66%), followed by bupropion/naltrexone (16%) and phentermine/topiramate (14.4%).

Dr. Elangovan said that the rates of surgery and antiobesity pharmacotherapy found in the study were “sparse” compared with rates of obesity.

“[Future studies need] to find the barriers to antiobesity pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Elangovan said. “We know from some of the published studies that there are differences in provider perceptions, as well as patient populations who get the therapy.”

The present analysis showed that women, African Americans, and patients with commercial insurance were significantly more likely to receive postoperative weight-loss medications than other patient subgroups.

“I think insurance could be a potential concern,” Dr. Elangovan said. “This has been shown previously in the literature.” She also suggested that women may be accessing obesity-related health care more often than men.

Discussing steps to improve interventions for patients with obesity, Dr. Elangovan emphasized the amount of data supporting antiobesity pharmacotherapy.

“We know from studies published so far that combining pharmacotherapy with behavioral modifications has a greater percentage of success, compared to behavioral modifications by themselves,” Dr. Elangovan said.

According to Dr. Elangovan, primary care providers play a key role in connecting obese patients with the treatments they need, requiring familiarity with existing guidelines.

“It helps if practicing clinicians, especially primary care providers, are familiar with bariatric surgery criteria and institution policies,” Dr. Elangovan said. “It has been shown in some studies that limited experience in prescribing and concern for adverse reactions could affect the prescription of antiobesity pharmacotherapy. Targeted interventions such as educational programs may increase the appropriate usage of medications.”

Dr. Smith disclosed a relationship with US Endoscopy.

SOURCE: Shah R et al. DDW 2020, Abstract 791.

Antibiotic exposure within 14 days after screening colonoscopy may increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), based on a retrospective analysis of more than 400,000 individuals.

Antibiotic use in the 2 weeks leading up to colonoscopy also trended toward an association with IBS, reported lead author Ravy Vajravelu, MD, of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Laboratory studies in mice have demonstrated that colon cleansing in conjunction with systemic antibiotic use can cause persistent intestinal dysbiosis,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19. “Because perturbation of the gut microbiome is thought to be a trigger for the development of IBS, we sought to assess whether humans who undergo bowel cleanse for colonoscopy in conjunction with antibiotic exposure develop new-onset IBS or IBS-related symptoms.”

According to Dr. Vajravelu, previous human studies have shown that bowel cleansing or antibiotics can alter the baseline gut microbiome, but no previous human research explored the impact of both triggers at once.

The present study involved individuals 50 years or older from the OptumInsight Clinformatics database who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2000 and 2016. Those with preexisting gastrointestinal conditions or symptoms within 180 days leading up to colonoscopy were excluded, leaving 402,259 individuals in the final cohort. From this group, individuals were identified who had exposure to antibiotics within 14 days before and/or after colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was a diagnosis of IBS in the 180 days following the antibiotic exposure window. Secondary outcomes included newly diagnosed diarrhea, change in bowel habits, and abdominal pain. A variety of covariates were tested through multivariable logistical regression, including gastrointestinal infections, medical comorbidities, and demographic factors, with only sex and age remaining in the final model.

Across the cohort, 2% of patients received antibiotics either before or after colonoscopy, while 1% had exposure both before and after. A total of 1,002 individuals (0.2%) were diagnosed with IBS within a median time frame of 112 days.

Multivariate analysis revealed that individuals exposed to antibiotics in the 14 days following colonoscopy had a 77% increased risk of developing IBS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.39). To a lesser degree, and not quite achieving statistical significance, trends toward an association were found for antibiotic exposure before colonoscopy (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92), and for antibiotic exposure both before and after colonoscopy (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.97-2.04).

Dr. Vajravelu said that these preliminary findings are currently undergoing further analysis.

“In particular, we are interested in determining whether antibiotics that target gram-negative bacteria, which are abundant in the gut, have a greater association with subsequent IBS,” Dr. Vajravelu said.

In addition, they are taking steps to eliminate other confounding factors.

“The main objective of these new analyses is to ensure that the association between bowel cleanse and antibiotics with subsequent IBS is not related to the reasons antibiotics were prescribed initially,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “For example, someone experiencing diarrhea could receive a trial of empiric antibiotics and then receive a colonoscopy when the diarrhea does not resolve. In [the present analysis], we avoided including individuals like this by including only those who underwent screening colonoscopy, and therefore did not have any prior documented GI symptoms. In our [ongoing] analyses, we are including additional restrictions to strengthen the findings.”

If the findings do hold, Dr. Vajravelu suggested that they may have clinical implications.

“[I]t may be important to review whether patients scheduled for colonoscopy have received recent antibiotics and warn them to avoid antibiotics after colonoscopy, if possible,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “Additionally, for gastroenterologists, these data may underscore the importance of adhering to preprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines put forth by GI societies.”The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, and others.

SOURCE: Vajravelu R et al. DDW 2020. Abstract 404.

Antibiotic exposure within 14 days after screening colonoscopy may increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), based on a retrospective analysis of more than 400,000 individuals.

Antibiotic use in the 2 weeks leading up to colonoscopy also trended toward an association with IBS, reported lead author Ravy Vajravelu, MD, of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Laboratory studies in mice have demonstrated that colon cleansing in conjunction with systemic antibiotic use can cause persistent intestinal dysbiosis,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19. “Because perturbation of the gut microbiome is thought to be a trigger for the development of IBS, we sought to assess whether humans who undergo bowel cleanse for colonoscopy in conjunction with antibiotic exposure develop new-onset IBS or IBS-related symptoms.”

According to Dr. Vajravelu, previous human studies have shown that bowel cleansing or antibiotics can alter the baseline gut microbiome, but no previous human research explored the impact of both triggers at once.

The present study involved individuals 50 years or older from the OptumInsight Clinformatics database who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2000 and 2016. Those with preexisting gastrointestinal conditions or symptoms within 180 days leading up to colonoscopy were excluded, leaving 402,259 individuals in the final cohort. From this group, individuals were identified who had exposure to antibiotics within 14 days before and/or after colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was a diagnosis of IBS in the 180 days following the antibiotic exposure window. Secondary outcomes included newly diagnosed diarrhea, change in bowel habits, and abdominal pain. A variety of covariates were tested through multivariable logistical regression, including gastrointestinal infections, medical comorbidities, and demographic factors, with only sex and age remaining in the final model.

Across the cohort, 2% of patients received antibiotics either before or after colonoscopy, while 1% had exposure both before and after. A total of 1,002 individuals (0.2%) were diagnosed with IBS within a median time frame of 112 days.

Multivariate analysis revealed that individuals exposed to antibiotics in the 14 days following colonoscopy had a 77% increased risk of developing IBS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.39). To a lesser degree, and not quite achieving statistical significance, trends toward an association were found for antibiotic exposure before colonoscopy (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92), and for antibiotic exposure both before and after colonoscopy (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.97-2.04).

Dr. Vajravelu said that these preliminary findings are currently undergoing further analysis.

“In particular, we are interested in determining whether antibiotics that target gram-negative bacteria, which are abundant in the gut, have a greater association with subsequent IBS,” Dr. Vajravelu said.

In addition, they are taking steps to eliminate other confounding factors.

“The main objective of these new analyses is to ensure that the association between bowel cleanse and antibiotics with subsequent IBS is not related to the reasons antibiotics were prescribed initially,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “For example, someone experiencing diarrhea could receive a trial of empiric antibiotics and then receive a colonoscopy when the diarrhea does not resolve. In [the present analysis], we avoided including individuals like this by including only those who underwent screening colonoscopy, and therefore did not have any prior documented GI symptoms. In our [ongoing] analyses, we are including additional restrictions to strengthen the findings.”

If the findings do hold, Dr. Vajravelu suggested that they may have clinical implications.

“[I]t may be important to review whether patients scheduled for colonoscopy have received recent antibiotics and warn them to avoid antibiotics after colonoscopy, if possible,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “Additionally, for gastroenterologists, these data may underscore the importance of adhering to preprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines put forth by GI societies.”The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, and others.

SOURCE: Vajravelu R et al. DDW 2020. Abstract 404.

Antibiotic exposure within 14 days after screening colonoscopy may increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), based on a retrospective analysis of more than 400,000 individuals.

Antibiotic use in the 2 weeks leading up to colonoscopy also trended toward an association with IBS, reported lead author Ravy Vajravelu, MD, of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Laboratory studies in mice have demonstrated that colon cleansing in conjunction with systemic antibiotic use can cause persistent intestinal dysbiosis,” the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19. “Because perturbation of the gut microbiome is thought to be a trigger for the development of IBS, we sought to assess whether humans who undergo bowel cleanse for colonoscopy in conjunction with antibiotic exposure develop new-onset IBS or IBS-related symptoms.”

According to Dr. Vajravelu, previous human studies have shown that bowel cleansing or antibiotics can alter the baseline gut microbiome, but no previous human research explored the impact of both triggers at once.

The present study involved individuals 50 years or older from the OptumInsight Clinformatics database who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2000 and 2016. Those with preexisting gastrointestinal conditions or symptoms within 180 days leading up to colonoscopy were excluded, leaving 402,259 individuals in the final cohort. From this group, individuals were identified who had exposure to antibiotics within 14 days before and/or after colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was a diagnosis of IBS in the 180 days following the antibiotic exposure window. Secondary outcomes included newly diagnosed diarrhea, change in bowel habits, and abdominal pain. A variety of covariates were tested through multivariable logistical regression, including gastrointestinal infections, medical comorbidities, and demographic factors, with only sex and age remaining in the final model.

Across the cohort, 2% of patients received antibiotics either before or after colonoscopy, while 1% had exposure both before and after. A total of 1,002 individuals (0.2%) were diagnosed with IBS within a median time frame of 112 days.

Multivariate analysis revealed that individuals exposed to antibiotics in the 14 days following colonoscopy had a 77% increased risk of developing IBS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.39). To a lesser degree, and not quite achieving statistical significance, trends toward an association were found for antibiotic exposure before colonoscopy (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92), and for antibiotic exposure both before and after colonoscopy (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.97-2.04).

Dr. Vajravelu said that these preliminary findings are currently undergoing further analysis.

“In particular, we are interested in determining whether antibiotics that target gram-negative bacteria, which are abundant in the gut, have a greater association with subsequent IBS,” Dr. Vajravelu said.

In addition, they are taking steps to eliminate other confounding factors.

“The main objective of these new analyses is to ensure that the association between bowel cleanse and antibiotics with subsequent IBS is not related to the reasons antibiotics were prescribed initially,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “For example, someone experiencing diarrhea could receive a trial of empiric antibiotics and then receive a colonoscopy when the diarrhea does not resolve. In [the present analysis], we avoided including individuals like this by including only those who underwent screening colonoscopy, and therefore did not have any prior documented GI symptoms. In our [ongoing] analyses, we are including additional restrictions to strengthen the findings.”

If the findings do hold, Dr. Vajravelu suggested that they may have clinical implications.

“[I]t may be important to review whether patients scheduled for colonoscopy have received recent antibiotics and warn them to avoid antibiotics after colonoscopy, if possible,” Dr. Vajravelu said. “Additionally, for gastroenterologists, these data may underscore the importance of adhering to preprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines put forth by GI societies.”The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, and others.

SOURCE: Vajravelu R et al. DDW 2020. Abstract 404.

For seriously ill patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in their gastrointestinal tract, performing a fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) may result in fewer and less severe infections, as well as shorter hospital stays, according to investigators.

Significant clinical improvements were observed across the group even though 59% of patients did not clear MDROs, which suggests that complete decolonization of resistant organisms may be unnecessary for patients to benefit from FMT, reported lead author Julian Marchesi, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and Imperial College London (England).

“We see the quality of life for these patients is hugely improved even when we don’t get rid of the organism totally,” Dr. Marchesi said in a virtual press conference.

Although previous studies have suggested that FMT may be used to decolonize MDROs, little research has addressed other clinical outcomes, the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

The present study involved 20 patients with MDROs, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), or vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Approximately half of the population (n = 11) had chronic hematological disease. The other half (n = 9) had recurrent urinary tract infections with ESBL, including patients who had undergone renal transplant or had recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

For each transplant, 200-300 mL of fecal slurry was delivered via nasogastric tube into the small intestine. Fecal donors underwent a strict screening process that included blood, fecal, and behavioral testing.

Multiple clinical outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months leading up to FMT, then compared with outcomes in the 6 months following fecal transplant. Out of 20 patients, 17 completed the 6-month follow-up. Although only 7 of these patients (41%) were decolonized of MDROs, multiple significant clinical improvements were observed across the group, including reductions in MDRO bloodstream infections (P = .047), all bloodstream infections (P = .03), length of stay in hospital (P = .0002), and duration of carbapenem use (P = .0005). Eight out of 11 patients with hematologic disease improved enough to undergo stem cell transplantation within 6 months of FMT, and in the subgroup of patients who had undergone renal transplant, the rate of urinary tract infections was significantly improved (P = .008).

No serious adverse events were encountered during the trial, which led the investigators to conclude that FMT was safe and well tolerated, even in patients with bloodstream infections and those who were highly immunosuppressed.

Beyond clinical implications, Dr. Marchesi suggested that the study findings should influence FMT trial methodology.

“We’ve got to start thinking a little bit differently in terms of how we measure the impact of FMT,” he said. “It’s not all about ... getting rid of these opportunistic pathogens. There are other quality-of-life factors that we need to measure, because they’re also important for the patient.”

Dr. Marchesi said that more research is needed to confirm findings and gain a mechanistic understanding of why patients may improve despite a lack of decolonization.

“We think we’re on a strong foundation here to take this into a clinical trial,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

For seriously ill patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in their gastrointestinal tract, performing a fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) may result in fewer and less severe infections, as well as shorter hospital stays, according to investigators.

Significant clinical improvements were observed across the group even though 59% of patients did not clear MDROs, which suggests that complete decolonization of resistant organisms may be unnecessary for patients to benefit from FMT, reported lead author Julian Marchesi, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and Imperial College London (England).

“We see the quality of life for these patients is hugely improved even when we don’t get rid of the organism totally,” Dr. Marchesi said in a virtual press conference.

Although previous studies have suggested that FMT may be used to decolonize MDROs, little research has addressed other clinical outcomes, the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

The present study involved 20 patients with MDROs, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), or vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Approximately half of the population (n = 11) had chronic hematological disease. The other half (n = 9) had recurrent urinary tract infections with ESBL, including patients who had undergone renal transplant or had recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

For each transplant, 200-300 mL of fecal slurry was delivered via nasogastric tube into the small intestine. Fecal donors underwent a strict screening process that included blood, fecal, and behavioral testing.

Multiple clinical outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months leading up to FMT, then compared with outcomes in the 6 months following fecal transplant. Out of 20 patients, 17 completed the 6-month follow-up. Although only 7 of these patients (41%) were decolonized of MDROs, multiple significant clinical improvements were observed across the group, including reductions in MDRO bloodstream infections (P = .047), all bloodstream infections (P = .03), length of stay in hospital (P = .0002), and duration of carbapenem use (P = .0005). Eight out of 11 patients with hematologic disease improved enough to undergo stem cell transplantation within 6 months of FMT, and in the subgroup of patients who had undergone renal transplant, the rate of urinary tract infections was significantly improved (P = .008).

No serious adverse events were encountered during the trial, which led the investigators to conclude that FMT was safe and well tolerated, even in patients with bloodstream infections and those who were highly immunosuppressed.

Beyond clinical implications, Dr. Marchesi suggested that the study findings should influence FMT trial methodology.

“We’ve got to start thinking a little bit differently in terms of how we measure the impact of FMT,” he said. “It’s not all about ... getting rid of these opportunistic pathogens. There are other quality-of-life factors that we need to measure, because they’re also important for the patient.”

Dr. Marchesi said that more research is needed to confirm findings and gain a mechanistic understanding of why patients may improve despite a lack of decolonization.

“We think we’re on a strong foundation here to take this into a clinical trial,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

For seriously ill patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in their gastrointestinal tract, performing a fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) may result in fewer and less severe infections, as well as shorter hospital stays, according to investigators.

Significant clinical improvements were observed across the group even though 59% of patients did not clear MDROs, which suggests that complete decolonization of resistant organisms may be unnecessary for patients to benefit from FMT, reported lead author Julian Marchesi, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and Imperial College London (England).

“We see the quality of life for these patients is hugely improved even when we don’t get rid of the organism totally,” Dr. Marchesi said in a virtual press conference.

Although previous studies have suggested that FMT may be used to decolonize MDROs, little research has addressed other clinical outcomes, the investigators wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

The present study involved 20 patients with MDROs, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), or vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Approximately half of the population (n = 11) had chronic hematological disease. The other half (n = 9) had recurrent urinary tract infections with ESBL, including patients who had undergone renal transplant or had recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

For each transplant, 200-300 mL of fecal slurry was delivered via nasogastric tube into the small intestine. Fecal donors underwent a strict screening process that included blood, fecal, and behavioral testing.

Multiple clinical outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months leading up to FMT, then compared with outcomes in the 6 months following fecal transplant. Out of 20 patients, 17 completed the 6-month follow-up. Although only 7 of these patients (41%) were decolonized of MDROs, multiple significant clinical improvements were observed across the group, including reductions in MDRO bloodstream infections (P = .047), all bloodstream infections (P = .03), length of stay in hospital (P = .0002), and duration of carbapenem use (P = .0005). Eight out of 11 patients with hematologic disease improved enough to undergo stem cell transplantation within 6 months of FMT, and in the subgroup of patients who had undergone renal transplant, the rate of urinary tract infections was significantly improved (P = .008).

No serious adverse events were encountered during the trial, which led the investigators to conclude that FMT was safe and well tolerated, even in patients with bloodstream infections and those who were highly immunosuppressed.

Beyond clinical implications, Dr. Marchesi suggested that the study findings should influence FMT trial methodology.

“We’ve got to start thinking a little bit differently in terms of how we measure the impact of FMT,” he said. “It’s not all about ... getting rid of these opportunistic pathogens. There are other quality-of-life factors that we need to measure, because they’re also important for the patient.”

Dr. Marchesi said that more research is needed to confirm findings and gain a mechanistic understanding of why patients may improve despite a lack of decolonization.

“We think we’re on a strong foundation here to take this into a clinical trial,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.