User login
Experts break down latest CAR T-cell advances in lymphoma
ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.
Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.
Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.
In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.
The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.
The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”
“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.
The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).
Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.
ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.
Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.
Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.
In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.
The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.
The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”
“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.
The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).
Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.
ORLANDO – There’s now mature data surrounding the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in lymphoma, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology brought forth additional information from real-world studies, insights about what is driving relapse, and promising data on mantle cell lymphoma.

Brian Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center; Frederick L. Locke, MD, of the Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.; and Peter Riedell, MD, of the University of Chicago.
Among the studies highlighted by the panel was the Transcend NHL 001 study (Abstract 241), which looked at third-line use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, and other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. More than 300 patients were enrolled, and liso-cel met all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, with an overall response rate of more than 70%. The notable take-home point from the study was the safety profile, Dr. Riedell noted. Liso-cel was associated with a lower rate of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, compared with the currently approved products.
Since patients in the study had a lower incidence and later onset of cytokine release syndrome, liso-cel could be a candidate for outpatient administration, Dr. Locke said. However, doing that would require “significant infrastructure” in hospitals and clinics to properly support patients, especially given that the treatment-related mortality on the study was similar to approved CAR T-cell products at about 3%. “You have to be ready to admit the patient to the hospital very rapidly, and you have to have the providers and the nurses who are vigilant when the patient is not in the hospital,” he said.
Another notable study presented at ASH examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving bridging therapy while awaiting treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 245). This real-world study adds interesting information to the field because, in some of the studies that were pivotal to the approval of CAR T-cell therapy, bridging therapy was not allowed, Dr. Locke said.
In this analysis, researchers found that the overall survival was worse among patients who received bridging. This finding suggests that patients who received bridging therapy had a different biology or that the therapy itself may have had an effect on the host or tumor microenvironment that affected the efficacy of the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers reported.
The panel also highlighted the Zuma-2 study, which looked at KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, among more than 70 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who had failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Abstract 754). “This was, I thought, kind of a sleeper study at ASH,” said Dr. Hill, who was one of the authors of the study.
The overall response rate was 93% with about two-thirds of patients achieving a complete response. Researchers found that the response was consistent across subgroups, including Ki-67 and patients with prior use of steroids or bridging therapy. Dr. Locke, who was also a study author, said the results are a “game changer.”
“I’m very excited about it,” Dr. Riedell said, noting that these are patients without a lot of treatment options.
The panel also discussed other studies from ASH, including an analysis of tumor tissue samples from patients in the ZUMA-1 trial who had responded and subsequently relapsed (Abstract 203); a multicenter prospective analysis of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who had relapsed after treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Abstract 884); and the early use of corticosteroids to prevent toxicities in patients in cohort 4 of the ZUMA-1 trial (Abstract 243).
Dr. Hill reported consulting with Juno/Celgene/BMS and Novartis and research and consulting for Kite/Gilead. Dr. Locke reported consulting for Cellular Biomedicine Group and being a scientific adviser to Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Celgene/BMS, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Calibr, and Allogene. Dr. Riedell reported consulting for Bayer and Verastem, consulting for and research funding from Novartis and BMS/Celgene, and consulting for, research funding from, and speaking for Kite.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ASH 2019
Ofatumumab works safely for elderly patients with CLL, comorbidities
For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.
Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.
These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.
The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.
More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).
Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).
Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.
With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.
“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”
The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.
SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.
For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.
Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.
These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.
The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.
More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).
Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).
Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.
With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.
“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”
The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.
SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.
For elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab may be a safe and effective treatment option, according to a recent phase 2 trial.
Among 32 patients with a median age of 73 years, the overall response rate was 72%, and no grade 4 adverse events occurred, reported lead author Candida Vitale, MD, PhD, of the University of Torino (Italy) and colleagues.
These findings help fill in a knowledge gap created by clinical trial exclusions, which currently make treatment planning “a significant challenge,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Geriatric Oncology.
The study, which was conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, enrolled 34 treatment-naive patients with CLL who were 65 years or older. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3, or a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. Patients with other serious medical conditions and/or primary malignancies were eligible, given that they were not already receiving anticancer therapy.
More than half of the patients (53%) had advanced-stage disease and almost one-third (29%) had at least one other primary cancer diagnosis. Many patients also had high-risk disease characteristics, including a complex karyotype involving three or more chromosomal abnormalities (15%), and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV, 59%).
Among 32 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, the overall response rate was 72%, of which 53% were partial and 19% were complete. Six percent (6%) of patients achieved minimal residual disease negativity. The benefits of ofatumumab extended to patients with high-risk disease characteristics, including unmutated IGHV (65% response rate) and/or a complex karyotype (60% response rate).
Ofatumumab also demonstrated a favorable safety profile, according to the investigators.
With all 34 patients evaluable for safety data, 19 (56%) experienced a grade 1 or 2 infusion-related reaction, and 1 (3%) experienced a grade 3 infusion-related reaction. Twenty-one grade 2 infections were reported, and one grade 3 infection occurred. Other grade 3 treatment-related adverse events included gastrointestinal disturbances, pulmonary embolism, allergic reaction, and hyperglycemia, each of which occurred in one patient. No grade 4 adverse events, or grade 2 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred.
“Our findings show that older patients with poor performance status and comorbidities can safely undergo treatment with ofatumumab,” the investigators concluded. “[The results] also support the possibility of enrolling these patients in clinical trials, so that a larger number of patients will be included and their characteristics will more closely mirror those of typical patients seen in the community.”
The study was funded by Novartis, which markets the antibody. The investigators reported additional relationships with AbbVie, Roche, Celgene, and others.
SOURCE: Vitale et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.002.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC ONCOLOGY
CAR T-cell therapy may worsen mental health in some patients
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.
But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.
These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.
“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”
The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.
Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.
Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.
“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.
SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.
But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.
These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.
“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”
The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.
Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.
Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.
“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.
SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.
But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.
These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.
“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”
The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.
Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.
Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.
“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.
SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.
FROM BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Medicaid spending on MS drugs rose despite introduction of generic glatiramer
Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.
“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.
Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.
Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.
The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.
“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”
In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”
Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.
“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”
These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.
The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.
SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.
Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.
“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.
Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.
Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.
The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.
“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”
In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”
Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.
“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”
These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.
The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.
SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.
Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.
“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.
Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.
Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.
The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.
“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”
In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”
Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.
“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”
These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.
The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.
SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: Medicaid spending on MS DMTs continues to rise in spite of generic introduction.
Major finding: Cost is the major factor in spending as utilization has remained stable.
Study details: Researchers examined quarterly Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data from 2011 to 2017, examining spending, utilization and cost per prescription for 15 MS DMTs, including brand and generic versions of glatiramer acetate.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.
Source: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.
REGN1979 shows good activity in pretreated aggressive B-NHL
ORLANDO – A novel bispecific antibody directed against CD20 and CD3 was associated in a phase 1 trial with a high overall response rate among patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas in early clinical trials, including patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that had progressed following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
Among 22 patients previously treated for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma of grade 1-3a, there were 21 responses (95%), including 17 complete responses (CR) and 4 partial responses (PR), with the remaining patient having stable disease at 12 weeks of follow-up, reported Rajat Bannerji, MD, PhD, from the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick.
“We had activity that was fairly robust in this heavily pretreated population with follicular lymphoma, large-cell patients who had not received CAR T and large-cell patients who had received CAR T, mantle cell, and marginal zone [lymphoma],” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
REGN1979 is an anti-CD20 and anti-CD3 bispecific IgG4 antibody. It is designed to cross-link and activate CD3-expressing T cells on contact with CD20-positive B cells to kill CD20-positive tumor cells independent of T-cell receptor recognition.
The antibody is administered via an escalating dose schedule consisting of initial, intermediate, and step-up doses.
In addition to the follicular lymphoma response rates noted before, patients with heavily pretreated DLBCL who received the antibody at a dose of 80 mg or higher had an overall response rate of 57.9% (11 patients) including 42.1% CR (8 patients), and 15.8% PR (3 patients). Two patients had stable disease at the 12-week assessment, three had disease progression, and three were not available for assessment.
Among seven patients with DLBCL treated at 80 mg or above who had not received CAR T therapy, five had a CR, one had stable disease, and one had disease progression. Of 12 patients with prior CAR T exposure, 3 had complete responses, 3 had partial responses, 1 had stable disease, 2 had progressive disease, and 3 were not available for assessment.
Among six patients with mantle cell lymphoma and six with marginal zone lymphoma treated across all disease levels, the ORR in each cohort was 67%, with two of six patients in each cohort having a complete response, and two having a partial response.
The safety analysis of all 110 patients enrolled showed that no patients experience a dose-limiting toxicity during the escalation phase, and no maximum tolerated doses were identified.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia in 88 patients, cytokine release syndrome in 65, chills in 56, fatigue in 40, and anemia in 39.
The most common grade 3-4 AEs were anemia in 24, and hypophosphatemia, lymphopenia, and neutropenia in 21 patients each.
Neurologic AEs were transient and did not require treatment discontinuation, and there were no grade 4 neurologic AEs or deaths from neurologic side effects.
Six patients discontinued the study drug because of treatment-related AEs that included cytomegalovirus infection, grade 3 hemolysis, fatigue, pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis.
A total of 15 patients died during the study, 10 of which were caused by progressive disease, with other deaths caused by gastric perforation, cardiac arrest, lung infection, pneumonia, and 1 from fungal pneumonia 7 months after treatment discontinuation. In addition, after the data cutoff, one patient with mantle cell lymphoma blastoid variant with bone-marrow involvement and bulky disease who was enrolled in an expansion cohort died from tumor lysis syndrome.
The dose-escalation portion of the trial has been completed and expansion cohorts are being enrolled. In addition, REGN1979 is being investigated in a phase 2 global multiarm trial.
The study is supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bannerji reported research funding, travel support, and consulting fees from Regeneron and others.
SOURCE: Bannerji R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 762.
ORLANDO – A novel bispecific antibody directed against CD20 and CD3 was associated in a phase 1 trial with a high overall response rate among patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas in early clinical trials, including patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that had progressed following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
Among 22 patients previously treated for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma of grade 1-3a, there were 21 responses (95%), including 17 complete responses (CR) and 4 partial responses (PR), with the remaining patient having stable disease at 12 weeks of follow-up, reported Rajat Bannerji, MD, PhD, from the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick.
“We had activity that was fairly robust in this heavily pretreated population with follicular lymphoma, large-cell patients who had not received CAR T and large-cell patients who had received CAR T, mantle cell, and marginal zone [lymphoma],” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
REGN1979 is an anti-CD20 and anti-CD3 bispecific IgG4 antibody. It is designed to cross-link and activate CD3-expressing T cells on contact with CD20-positive B cells to kill CD20-positive tumor cells independent of T-cell receptor recognition.
The antibody is administered via an escalating dose schedule consisting of initial, intermediate, and step-up doses.
In addition to the follicular lymphoma response rates noted before, patients with heavily pretreated DLBCL who received the antibody at a dose of 80 mg or higher had an overall response rate of 57.9% (11 patients) including 42.1% CR (8 patients), and 15.8% PR (3 patients). Two patients had stable disease at the 12-week assessment, three had disease progression, and three were not available for assessment.
Among seven patients with DLBCL treated at 80 mg or above who had not received CAR T therapy, five had a CR, one had stable disease, and one had disease progression. Of 12 patients with prior CAR T exposure, 3 had complete responses, 3 had partial responses, 1 had stable disease, 2 had progressive disease, and 3 were not available for assessment.
Among six patients with mantle cell lymphoma and six with marginal zone lymphoma treated across all disease levels, the ORR in each cohort was 67%, with two of six patients in each cohort having a complete response, and two having a partial response.
The safety analysis of all 110 patients enrolled showed that no patients experience a dose-limiting toxicity during the escalation phase, and no maximum tolerated doses were identified.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia in 88 patients, cytokine release syndrome in 65, chills in 56, fatigue in 40, and anemia in 39.
The most common grade 3-4 AEs were anemia in 24, and hypophosphatemia, lymphopenia, and neutropenia in 21 patients each.
Neurologic AEs were transient and did not require treatment discontinuation, and there were no grade 4 neurologic AEs or deaths from neurologic side effects.
Six patients discontinued the study drug because of treatment-related AEs that included cytomegalovirus infection, grade 3 hemolysis, fatigue, pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis.
A total of 15 patients died during the study, 10 of which were caused by progressive disease, with other deaths caused by gastric perforation, cardiac arrest, lung infection, pneumonia, and 1 from fungal pneumonia 7 months after treatment discontinuation. In addition, after the data cutoff, one patient with mantle cell lymphoma blastoid variant with bone-marrow involvement and bulky disease who was enrolled in an expansion cohort died from tumor lysis syndrome.
The dose-escalation portion of the trial has been completed and expansion cohorts are being enrolled. In addition, REGN1979 is being investigated in a phase 2 global multiarm trial.
The study is supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bannerji reported research funding, travel support, and consulting fees from Regeneron and others.
SOURCE: Bannerji R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 762.
ORLANDO – A novel bispecific antibody directed against CD20 and CD3 was associated in a phase 1 trial with a high overall response rate among patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas in early clinical trials, including patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that had progressed following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
Among 22 patients previously treated for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma of grade 1-3a, there were 21 responses (95%), including 17 complete responses (CR) and 4 partial responses (PR), with the remaining patient having stable disease at 12 weeks of follow-up, reported Rajat Bannerji, MD, PhD, from the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick.
“We had activity that was fairly robust in this heavily pretreated population with follicular lymphoma, large-cell patients who had not received CAR T and large-cell patients who had received CAR T, mantle cell, and marginal zone [lymphoma],” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
REGN1979 is an anti-CD20 and anti-CD3 bispecific IgG4 antibody. It is designed to cross-link and activate CD3-expressing T cells on contact with CD20-positive B cells to kill CD20-positive tumor cells independent of T-cell receptor recognition.
The antibody is administered via an escalating dose schedule consisting of initial, intermediate, and step-up doses.
In addition to the follicular lymphoma response rates noted before, patients with heavily pretreated DLBCL who received the antibody at a dose of 80 mg or higher had an overall response rate of 57.9% (11 patients) including 42.1% CR (8 patients), and 15.8% PR (3 patients). Two patients had stable disease at the 12-week assessment, three had disease progression, and three were not available for assessment.
Among seven patients with DLBCL treated at 80 mg or above who had not received CAR T therapy, five had a CR, one had stable disease, and one had disease progression. Of 12 patients with prior CAR T exposure, 3 had complete responses, 3 had partial responses, 1 had stable disease, 2 had progressive disease, and 3 were not available for assessment.
Among six patients with mantle cell lymphoma and six with marginal zone lymphoma treated across all disease levels, the ORR in each cohort was 67%, with two of six patients in each cohort having a complete response, and two having a partial response.
The safety analysis of all 110 patients enrolled showed that no patients experience a dose-limiting toxicity during the escalation phase, and no maximum tolerated doses were identified.
The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia in 88 patients, cytokine release syndrome in 65, chills in 56, fatigue in 40, and anemia in 39.
The most common grade 3-4 AEs were anemia in 24, and hypophosphatemia, lymphopenia, and neutropenia in 21 patients each.
Neurologic AEs were transient and did not require treatment discontinuation, and there were no grade 4 neurologic AEs or deaths from neurologic side effects.
Six patients discontinued the study drug because of treatment-related AEs that included cytomegalovirus infection, grade 3 hemolysis, fatigue, pneumonia, and toxoplasmosis.
A total of 15 patients died during the study, 10 of which were caused by progressive disease, with other deaths caused by gastric perforation, cardiac arrest, lung infection, pneumonia, and 1 from fungal pneumonia 7 months after treatment discontinuation. In addition, after the data cutoff, one patient with mantle cell lymphoma blastoid variant with bone-marrow involvement and bulky disease who was enrolled in an expansion cohort died from tumor lysis syndrome.
The dose-escalation portion of the trial has been completed and expansion cohorts are being enrolled. In addition, REGN1979 is being investigated in a phase 2 global multiarm trial.
The study is supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bannerji reported research funding, travel support, and consulting fees from Regeneron and others.
SOURCE: Bannerji R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 762.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2019
NCCN guidelines highlight ‘complicated’ treatment for pediatric lymphomas
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.
The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.
“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”
The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.
“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.
“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.
As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.
On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).
“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”
Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.
“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.
She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.
Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.
9/11 responders show increased risk of leukemia, other cancers
New data suggest an increased risk of leukemia among responders who worked at the World Trade Center site after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Previous studies have shown that 9/11 responders have a higher incidence of cancers than does the general population. The current study is the first to show a higher incidence of leukemia among responders. It also shows a higher incidence of thyroid and prostate cancers as well as all cancer types combined.
These findings were published in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
“This study showed increased incidence of several cancer types compared to previously conducted studies with shorter follow-up periods,” study author Susan L, Teitelbaum, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.
“Because of the long latency period of many types of cancer, it is possible that increased rates of other cancers, as well as World Trade Center exposure health issues, may emerge after longer periods of study.”
Dr. Teitelbaum and colleagues evaluated responders enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Program General Responder Cohort from when it was established in July 2002 through the end of follow-up, which was Dec. 31, 2013, for New York residents and Dec. 31, 2012, for residents of other states.
To be eligible for the cohort, responders must have worked on the World Trade Center rescue and recovery effort a minimum of 4 hours in the first 4 days from Sept. 11, 2001, 24 hours in September 2001, or 80 hours from September through December 2001. Responders also had to complete at least one monitoring visit.
Responders’ data were linked to data from cancer registries in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut (where most responders lived at the time of the attacks), as well as Florida and North Carolina (where responders were known to retire). The responders were linked to the registries using probabilistic matching algorithms, which made use of information such as patient name, address, social security number, sex, race, and birth date.
The researchers noted that patients who enrolled in the General Responder Cohort had their cancer certified for federally funded treatment, and this factor might result in “sicker members disproportionately self-selecting into the program.” To reduce this potential bias, the researchers conducted a restricted analysis in which counts of cancer cases and person-years of observation began 6 months after responder enrollment.
The researchers analyzed data on 28,729 responders who primarily worked in protective services (49.0%) and construction (20.8%). Responders spent a median of 52 days on the rescue and recovery effort, and 44.4% of them had some exposure to the dust cloud caused by the collapse of the towers.
In the restricted analysis, there were 1,072 cancers observed in 999 responders. Compared with the general population, responders had a significantly higher incidence of all cancers combined, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.09.
Responders had a significantly higher incidence of prostate cancer (SIR,1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR, 2.19), and leukemia (SIR, 1.41). The leukemia category included acute myeloid leukemia (SIR,1.58) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SIR, 1.08).
“Although other studies have revealed elevated SIRs for other hematologic malignancies, this is the first reported, statistically significant, elevated SIR for leukemia,” the researchers wrote. “Leukemia is known to occur after exposure to occupational carcinogens, including benzene (burning jet fuel and other sources at the [World Trade Center] site), possibly at low levels of exposure and with a latency of several years from exposure.”
A multivariate analysis showed no association between cancer incidence and the length of time responders spent on the rescue and recovery effort or the intensity of their exposure to the dust cloud or debris pile.
The analysis did show an elevated risk of all cancers combined with each 1-year increase in responder age (hazard ratio, 1.09), among male responders (HR, 1.21), and among responders who smoked at baseline (HR, 1.29).
This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The researchers disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shapiro MZ et al. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz090.
New data suggest an increased risk of leukemia among responders who worked at the World Trade Center site after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Previous studies have shown that 9/11 responders have a higher incidence of cancers than does the general population. The current study is the first to show a higher incidence of leukemia among responders. It also shows a higher incidence of thyroid and prostate cancers as well as all cancer types combined.
These findings were published in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
“This study showed increased incidence of several cancer types compared to previously conducted studies with shorter follow-up periods,” study author Susan L, Teitelbaum, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.
“Because of the long latency period of many types of cancer, it is possible that increased rates of other cancers, as well as World Trade Center exposure health issues, may emerge after longer periods of study.”
Dr. Teitelbaum and colleagues evaluated responders enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Program General Responder Cohort from when it was established in July 2002 through the end of follow-up, which was Dec. 31, 2013, for New York residents and Dec. 31, 2012, for residents of other states.
To be eligible for the cohort, responders must have worked on the World Trade Center rescue and recovery effort a minimum of 4 hours in the first 4 days from Sept. 11, 2001, 24 hours in September 2001, or 80 hours from September through December 2001. Responders also had to complete at least one monitoring visit.
Responders’ data were linked to data from cancer registries in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut (where most responders lived at the time of the attacks), as well as Florida and North Carolina (where responders were known to retire). The responders were linked to the registries using probabilistic matching algorithms, which made use of information such as patient name, address, social security number, sex, race, and birth date.
The researchers noted that patients who enrolled in the General Responder Cohort had their cancer certified for federally funded treatment, and this factor might result in “sicker members disproportionately self-selecting into the program.” To reduce this potential bias, the researchers conducted a restricted analysis in which counts of cancer cases and person-years of observation began 6 months after responder enrollment.
The researchers analyzed data on 28,729 responders who primarily worked in protective services (49.0%) and construction (20.8%). Responders spent a median of 52 days on the rescue and recovery effort, and 44.4% of them had some exposure to the dust cloud caused by the collapse of the towers.
In the restricted analysis, there were 1,072 cancers observed in 999 responders. Compared with the general population, responders had a significantly higher incidence of all cancers combined, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.09.
Responders had a significantly higher incidence of prostate cancer (SIR,1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR, 2.19), and leukemia (SIR, 1.41). The leukemia category included acute myeloid leukemia (SIR,1.58) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SIR, 1.08).
“Although other studies have revealed elevated SIRs for other hematologic malignancies, this is the first reported, statistically significant, elevated SIR for leukemia,” the researchers wrote. “Leukemia is known to occur after exposure to occupational carcinogens, including benzene (burning jet fuel and other sources at the [World Trade Center] site), possibly at low levels of exposure and with a latency of several years from exposure.”
A multivariate analysis showed no association between cancer incidence and the length of time responders spent on the rescue and recovery effort or the intensity of their exposure to the dust cloud or debris pile.
The analysis did show an elevated risk of all cancers combined with each 1-year increase in responder age (hazard ratio, 1.09), among male responders (HR, 1.21), and among responders who smoked at baseline (HR, 1.29).
This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The researchers disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shapiro MZ et al. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz090.
New data suggest an increased risk of leukemia among responders who worked at the World Trade Center site after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Previous studies have shown that 9/11 responders have a higher incidence of cancers than does the general population. The current study is the first to show a higher incidence of leukemia among responders. It also shows a higher incidence of thyroid and prostate cancers as well as all cancer types combined.
These findings were published in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.
“This study showed increased incidence of several cancer types compared to previously conducted studies with shorter follow-up periods,” study author Susan L, Teitelbaum, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a press release.
“Because of the long latency period of many types of cancer, it is possible that increased rates of other cancers, as well as World Trade Center exposure health issues, may emerge after longer periods of study.”
Dr. Teitelbaum and colleagues evaluated responders enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Program General Responder Cohort from when it was established in July 2002 through the end of follow-up, which was Dec. 31, 2013, for New York residents and Dec. 31, 2012, for residents of other states.
To be eligible for the cohort, responders must have worked on the World Trade Center rescue and recovery effort a minimum of 4 hours in the first 4 days from Sept. 11, 2001, 24 hours in September 2001, or 80 hours from September through December 2001. Responders also had to complete at least one monitoring visit.
Responders’ data were linked to data from cancer registries in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut (where most responders lived at the time of the attacks), as well as Florida and North Carolina (where responders were known to retire). The responders were linked to the registries using probabilistic matching algorithms, which made use of information such as patient name, address, social security number, sex, race, and birth date.
The researchers noted that patients who enrolled in the General Responder Cohort had their cancer certified for federally funded treatment, and this factor might result in “sicker members disproportionately self-selecting into the program.” To reduce this potential bias, the researchers conducted a restricted analysis in which counts of cancer cases and person-years of observation began 6 months after responder enrollment.
The researchers analyzed data on 28,729 responders who primarily worked in protective services (49.0%) and construction (20.8%). Responders spent a median of 52 days on the rescue and recovery effort, and 44.4% of them had some exposure to the dust cloud caused by the collapse of the towers.
In the restricted analysis, there were 1,072 cancers observed in 999 responders. Compared with the general population, responders had a significantly higher incidence of all cancers combined, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.09.
Responders had a significantly higher incidence of prostate cancer (SIR,1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR, 2.19), and leukemia (SIR, 1.41). The leukemia category included acute myeloid leukemia (SIR,1.58) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SIR, 1.08).
“Although other studies have revealed elevated SIRs for other hematologic malignancies, this is the first reported, statistically significant, elevated SIR for leukemia,” the researchers wrote. “Leukemia is known to occur after exposure to occupational carcinogens, including benzene (burning jet fuel and other sources at the [World Trade Center] site), possibly at low levels of exposure and with a latency of several years from exposure.”
A multivariate analysis showed no association between cancer incidence and the length of time responders spent on the rescue and recovery effort or the intensity of their exposure to the dust cloud or debris pile.
The analysis did show an elevated risk of all cancers combined with each 1-year increase in responder age (hazard ratio, 1.09), among male responders (HR, 1.21), and among responders who smoked at baseline (HR, 1.29).
This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The researchers disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Shapiro MZ et al. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz090.
FROM JNCI CANCER SPECTRUM
FDA approves diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters
The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.
Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.
The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.
Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.
Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.
The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.
Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.
Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.
The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.
Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
AED exposure from breastfeeding appears to be low
JAMA Neurology. The results may explain why previous research failed to find adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding in infants whose mothers are undergoing AED treatment, said the authors.
, according to a study published online ahead of print Dec. 30, 2019, in“The results of this study add support to the general safety of breastfeeding by mothers with epilepsy who take AEDs,” wrote Angela K. Birnbaum, PhD, professor of experimental and clinical pharmacology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Investigators measured infants’ blood AED concentrations
To date, medical consensus about the safety of breastfeeding while the mother is taking AEDs has been elusive. Researchers have investigated breast milk concentrations of AEDs as surrogate markers of AED concentrations in children. Breast milk concentrations, however, do not account for differences in infant pharmacokinetic processes and thus could misrepresent AED exposure in children through breastfeeding.
Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues sought to measure blood concentrations of AEDs in mothers with epilepsy and the infants that they breastfed to achieve an objective measure of AED exposure through breastfeeding. They examined data collected from December 2012 to October 2016 in the prospective Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study. Eligible participants were pregnant women with epilepsy between the ages of 14 and 45 years whose pregnancies had progressed to fewer than 20 weeks’ gestational age and who had IQ scores greater than 70 points. Participants were followed up throughout pregnancy and for 9 months post partum. Children were enrolled at birth.
The investigators collected blood samples from mothers and infants who were breastfed at the same visit, which occurred at between 5 and 20 weeks after birth. The volume of ingested breast milk delivered through graduated feeding bottles each day and the total duration of all daily breastfeeding sessions were recorded. For infants, blood samples were collected from the plantar surface of the heel and stored as dried blood spots on filter paper. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage of infant-to-mother concentration of AEDs. Concentrations of AEDs in infants at less than the lower limit of quantification were assessed as half of the lower limit.
Exposure in utero may be greater than exposure through breast milk
In all, the researchers enrolled 351 pregnant women with epilepsy into the study and collected data on 345 infants. Two hundred twenty-two (64.3%) of the infants were breastfed, and 146 (42.3%) had AED concentrations available. After excluding outliers and mothers with missing concentration data, Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues included 164 matching infant-mother concentration pairs in their analysis (i.e., of 135 mothers and 138 infants). Approximately 52% of the infants were female, and their median age at blood collection was 13 weeks. The mothers’ median age was 32 years. About 82% of mothers were receiving monotherapy. The investigators found no demographic differences between groups of mothers taking various AEDs.
Sixty-eight infants (49.3%) had AED concentrations that were less than the lower limit of quantification. AED concentration was not greater than the lower limit of quantification for any infants breastfed by mothers taking carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, valproic acid, or topiramate. Most levetiracetam (71.4%) and zonisamide (60.0%) concentrations in infants were less than the lower limit of quantification. Most lamotrigine concentrations in infants (88.6%) were greater than the lower limit of quantification.
The median percentage of infant-to-mother concentration was 28.9% for lamotrigine, 5.3% for levetiracetam, 44.2% for zonisamide, 5.7% for carbamazepine, 5.4% for carbamazepine epoxide, 0.3% for oxcarbazepine, 17.2% for topiramate, and 21.4% for valproic acid. Multiple linear regression models indicated that maternal concentration was significantly associated with lamotrigine concentration in infants, but not levetiracetam concentration in infants.
“Prior studies at delivery demonstrated that umbilical-cord concentrations were nearly equal to maternal concentrations, suggesting extensive placental passage to the fetus,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues. “Therefore, the amount of AED exposure via breast milk is likely substantially lower than fetal exposure during pregnancy and appears unlikely to confer any additional risks beyond those that might be associated with exposure in pregnancy, especially given prior studies showing no adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding while taking AEDs.”
The investigators acknowledged several limitations of their research, including the observational design of the MONEAD study. The amount of AED in participants’ breast milk is unknown, and the investigators could not calculate relative infant dosages. Only one blood sample was taken per infant, thus the results may not reflect infants’ total exposure over time.
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Development funded the research. The authors reported receiving research support from various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Birnbaum AK et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4443.
JAMA Neurology. The results may explain why previous research failed to find adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding in infants whose mothers are undergoing AED treatment, said the authors.
, according to a study published online ahead of print Dec. 30, 2019, in“The results of this study add support to the general safety of breastfeeding by mothers with epilepsy who take AEDs,” wrote Angela K. Birnbaum, PhD, professor of experimental and clinical pharmacology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Investigators measured infants’ blood AED concentrations
To date, medical consensus about the safety of breastfeeding while the mother is taking AEDs has been elusive. Researchers have investigated breast milk concentrations of AEDs as surrogate markers of AED concentrations in children. Breast milk concentrations, however, do not account for differences in infant pharmacokinetic processes and thus could misrepresent AED exposure in children through breastfeeding.
Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues sought to measure blood concentrations of AEDs in mothers with epilepsy and the infants that they breastfed to achieve an objective measure of AED exposure through breastfeeding. They examined data collected from December 2012 to October 2016 in the prospective Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study. Eligible participants were pregnant women with epilepsy between the ages of 14 and 45 years whose pregnancies had progressed to fewer than 20 weeks’ gestational age and who had IQ scores greater than 70 points. Participants were followed up throughout pregnancy and for 9 months post partum. Children were enrolled at birth.
The investigators collected blood samples from mothers and infants who were breastfed at the same visit, which occurred at between 5 and 20 weeks after birth. The volume of ingested breast milk delivered through graduated feeding bottles each day and the total duration of all daily breastfeeding sessions were recorded. For infants, blood samples were collected from the plantar surface of the heel and stored as dried blood spots on filter paper. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage of infant-to-mother concentration of AEDs. Concentrations of AEDs in infants at less than the lower limit of quantification were assessed as half of the lower limit.
Exposure in utero may be greater than exposure through breast milk
In all, the researchers enrolled 351 pregnant women with epilepsy into the study and collected data on 345 infants. Two hundred twenty-two (64.3%) of the infants were breastfed, and 146 (42.3%) had AED concentrations available. After excluding outliers and mothers with missing concentration data, Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues included 164 matching infant-mother concentration pairs in their analysis (i.e., of 135 mothers and 138 infants). Approximately 52% of the infants were female, and their median age at blood collection was 13 weeks. The mothers’ median age was 32 years. About 82% of mothers were receiving monotherapy. The investigators found no demographic differences between groups of mothers taking various AEDs.
Sixty-eight infants (49.3%) had AED concentrations that were less than the lower limit of quantification. AED concentration was not greater than the lower limit of quantification for any infants breastfed by mothers taking carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, valproic acid, or topiramate. Most levetiracetam (71.4%) and zonisamide (60.0%) concentrations in infants were less than the lower limit of quantification. Most lamotrigine concentrations in infants (88.6%) were greater than the lower limit of quantification.
The median percentage of infant-to-mother concentration was 28.9% for lamotrigine, 5.3% for levetiracetam, 44.2% for zonisamide, 5.7% for carbamazepine, 5.4% for carbamazepine epoxide, 0.3% for oxcarbazepine, 17.2% for topiramate, and 21.4% for valproic acid. Multiple linear regression models indicated that maternal concentration was significantly associated with lamotrigine concentration in infants, but not levetiracetam concentration in infants.
“Prior studies at delivery demonstrated that umbilical-cord concentrations were nearly equal to maternal concentrations, suggesting extensive placental passage to the fetus,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues. “Therefore, the amount of AED exposure via breast milk is likely substantially lower than fetal exposure during pregnancy and appears unlikely to confer any additional risks beyond those that might be associated with exposure in pregnancy, especially given prior studies showing no adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding while taking AEDs.”
The investigators acknowledged several limitations of their research, including the observational design of the MONEAD study. The amount of AED in participants’ breast milk is unknown, and the investigators could not calculate relative infant dosages. Only one blood sample was taken per infant, thus the results may not reflect infants’ total exposure over time.
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Development funded the research. The authors reported receiving research support from various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Birnbaum AK et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4443.
JAMA Neurology. The results may explain why previous research failed to find adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding in infants whose mothers are undergoing AED treatment, said the authors.
, according to a study published online ahead of print Dec. 30, 2019, in“The results of this study add support to the general safety of breastfeeding by mothers with epilepsy who take AEDs,” wrote Angela K. Birnbaum, PhD, professor of experimental and clinical pharmacology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Investigators measured infants’ blood AED concentrations
To date, medical consensus about the safety of breastfeeding while the mother is taking AEDs has been elusive. Researchers have investigated breast milk concentrations of AEDs as surrogate markers of AED concentrations in children. Breast milk concentrations, however, do not account for differences in infant pharmacokinetic processes and thus could misrepresent AED exposure in children through breastfeeding.
Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues sought to measure blood concentrations of AEDs in mothers with epilepsy and the infants that they breastfed to achieve an objective measure of AED exposure through breastfeeding. They examined data collected from December 2012 to October 2016 in the prospective Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study. Eligible participants were pregnant women with epilepsy between the ages of 14 and 45 years whose pregnancies had progressed to fewer than 20 weeks’ gestational age and who had IQ scores greater than 70 points. Participants were followed up throughout pregnancy and for 9 months post partum. Children were enrolled at birth.
The investigators collected blood samples from mothers and infants who were breastfed at the same visit, which occurred at between 5 and 20 weeks after birth. The volume of ingested breast milk delivered through graduated feeding bottles each day and the total duration of all daily breastfeeding sessions were recorded. For infants, blood samples were collected from the plantar surface of the heel and stored as dried blood spots on filter paper. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage of infant-to-mother concentration of AEDs. Concentrations of AEDs in infants at less than the lower limit of quantification were assessed as half of the lower limit.
Exposure in utero may be greater than exposure through breast milk
In all, the researchers enrolled 351 pregnant women with epilepsy into the study and collected data on 345 infants. Two hundred twenty-two (64.3%) of the infants were breastfed, and 146 (42.3%) had AED concentrations available. After excluding outliers and mothers with missing concentration data, Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues included 164 matching infant-mother concentration pairs in their analysis (i.e., of 135 mothers and 138 infants). Approximately 52% of the infants were female, and their median age at blood collection was 13 weeks. The mothers’ median age was 32 years. About 82% of mothers were receiving monotherapy. The investigators found no demographic differences between groups of mothers taking various AEDs.
Sixty-eight infants (49.3%) had AED concentrations that were less than the lower limit of quantification. AED concentration was not greater than the lower limit of quantification for any infants breastfed by mothers taking carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, valproic acid, or topiramate. Most levetiracetam (71.4%) and zonisamide (60.0%) concentrations in infants were less than the lower limit of quantification. Most lamotrigine concentrations in infants (88.6%) were greater than the lower limit of quantification.
The median percentage of infant-to-mother concentration was 28.9% for lamotrigine, 5.3% for levetiracetam, 44.2% for zonisamide, 5.7% for carbamazepine, 5.4% for carbamazepine epoxide, 0.3% for oxcarbazepine, 17.2% for topiramate, and 21.4% for valproic acid. Multiple linear regression models indicated that maternal concentration was significantly associated with lamotrigine concentration in infants, but not levetiracetam concentration in infants.
“Prior studies at delivery demonstrated that umbilical-cord concentrations were nearly equal to maternal concentrations, suggesting extensive placental passage to the fetus,” wrote Dr. Birnbaum and colleagues. “Therefore, the amount of AED exposure via breast milk is likely substantially lower than fetal exposure during pregnancy and appears unlikely to confer any additional risks beyond those that might be associated with exposure in pregnancy, especially given prior studies showing no adverse neurodevelopmental effects of breastfeeding while taking AEDs.”
The investigators acknowledged several limitations of their research, including the observational design of the MONEAD study. The amount of AED in participants’ breast milk is unknown, and the investigators could not calculate relative infant dosages. Only one blood sample was taken per infant, thus the results may not reflect infants’ total exposure over time.
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Development funded the research. The authors reported receiving research support from various pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Birnbaum AK et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4443.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Delayed clinical care after concussion may prolong recovery
In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.
“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”
Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.
The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.
The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.
Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.
In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).
“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”
The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.
Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.
SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.
In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.
“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”
Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.
The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.
The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.
Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.
In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).
“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”
The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.
Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.
SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.
In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.
“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”
Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.
The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.
The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.
Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.
In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).
“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”
The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.
Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.
SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY