B-Cell Lymphoma ICYMI

SAN DIEGO – Longer-term follow-up of patients treated with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells for hematologic malignancies indicates that the altered cells are generally safe, with most late events being mild in nature and possibly related to therapies delivered before or after CAR T cells, investigators reported.

Among patients treated with CD19-targeted CAR T cells for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most frequent late adverse event was hypogammaglobulinemia, which occurred in 29 of 48 patients evaluated, reported Ana Cordeiro, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

“Our results suggest that CD19 CAR T cells are safe,” Dr. Cordeiro said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “However, continuing with prospective systematic and long-term follow-up of these patients is required for better understanding of these late effects.”

Dr. Cordeiro and colleagues studied a total of 60 patients who were enrolled in a phase 1/2 trial at their center of a CD19-targeted CAR T-cell construct and survived for at least 1 year.

The goal of the study was to describe complications that occurred or persisted beyond 90 days after CAR T-cell infusion.

The cohort included 43 patients treated for NHL and 17 treated for CLL. Patients with CLL were followed for a median of 27.5 months, and patients with NHL were followed for a median of 23.8 months.

As of September 2018, 47 patients were still alive, including 15 patients with CLL (88%) and 32 patients with NHL (74%). Of the 17 patients who died, 10 died from progressive disease (2 from CLL and 8 from NHL), and 3 patients died from nonrelapse causes associated with complications from subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), including 1 patient from graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and infection, 1 from infection, and 1 from cerberovascular accident/thrombotic microangiopathy.

Of 38 patients who received additional therapies, 17 had subsequent CAR T-cell infusions under the same protocol, and 16 went on to allo-HCT. Treatments for the remaining five patients were not specified.

Of the 22 patients who did not receive additional treatment for their primary malignancies, 21 were in ongoing complete remission following a single CAR T-cell infusion after a median follow-up of 28 months. However, two patients in this group did require treatment for therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS). The remaining patient had a small CLL clone at last follow-up.

Late adverse events included the following:

• Late significant cytopenias in three of 19 patients evaluated.
• Late hypogammaglobulinemia in 29 of 48 evaluated patients.
• A total of 138 late infections in 31 of the 60 patients.
• Subsequent malignancies in 10 of the 60 patients, including t-MDS, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and noninvasive bladder cancer.
• Late immune-related events in seven patients.
• Late neurogenic/psychiatric events, including one case each of transient ischemic attack at 3.8 months, encephalopathy and myoclonic seizure in the setting of chemotherapy, and a fatal cerebrovascular accident in the setting of allo-HCT and thrombotic microangiopathy. These patients did not have acute neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Cordeiro noted. In addition, three patients experienced exacerbation of depression or anxiety following infusion.
• GVHD in nine patients at a median time from allo-HCT to first CAR T-cell infusion of 46.3 months (range, 6.7 months to 11 years).

Focusing on those patients who achieve complete remissions after CAR T-cell therapy could help investigators isolate late events that are most likely related to CAR T cells, Dr. Cordeiro said.

Dr. Cordeiro reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cordeiro A et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 223.

SAN DIEGO – Longer-term follow-up of patients treated with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells for hematologic malignancies indicates that the altered cells are generally safe, with most late events being mild in nature and possibly related to therapies delivered before or after CAR T cells, investigators reported.

Among patients treated with CD19-targeted CAR T cells for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most frequent late adverse event was hypogammaglobulinemia, which occurred in 29 of 48 patients evaluated, reported Ana Cordeiro, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

“Our results suggest that CD19 CAR T cells are safe,” Dr. Cordeiro said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “However, continuing with prospective systematic and long-term follow-up of these patients is required for better understanding of these late effects.”

Dr. Cordeiro and colleagues studied a total of 60 patients who were enrolled in a phase 1/2 trial at their center of a CD19-targeted CAR T-cell construct and survived for at least 1 year.

The goal of the study was to describe complications that occurred or persisted beyond 90 days after CAR T-cell infusion.

The cohort included 43 patients treated for NHL and 17 treated for CLL. Patients with CLL were followed for a median of 27.5 months, and patients with NHL were followed for a median of 23.8 months.

As of September 2018, 47 patients were still alive, including 15 patients with CLL (88%) and 32 patients with NHL (74%). Of the 17 patients who died, 10 died from progressive disease (2 from CLL and 8 from NHL), and 3 patients died from nonrelapse causes associated with complications from subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), including 1 patient from graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and infection, 1 from infection, and 1 from cerberovascular accident/thrombotic microangiopathy.

Of 38 patients who received additional therapies, 17 had subsequent CAR T-cell infusions under the same protocol, and 16 went on to allo-HCT. Treatments for the remaining five patients were not specified.

Of the 22 patients who did not receive additional treatment for their primary malignancies, 21 were in ongoing complete remission following a single CAR T-cell infusion after a median follow-up of 28 months. However, two patients in this group did require treatment for therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS). The remaining patient had a small CLL clone at last follow-up.

Late adverse events included the following:

• Late significant cytopenias in three of 19 patients evaluated.
• Late hypogammaglobulinemia in 29 of 48 evaluated patients.
• A total of 138 late infections in 31 of the 60 patients.
• Subsequent malignancies in 10 of the 60 patients, including t-MDS, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and noninvasive bladder cancer.
• Late immune-related events in seven patients.
• Late neurogenic/psychiatric events, including one case each of transient ischemic attack at 3.8 months, encephalopathy and myoclonic seizure in the setting of chemotherapy, and a fatal cerebrovascular accident in the setting of allo-HCT and thrombotic microangiopathy. These patients did not have acute neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Cordeiro noted. In addition, three patients experienced exacerbation of depression or anxiety following infusion.
• GVHD in nine patients at a median time from allo-HCT to first CAR T-cell infusion of 46.3 months (range, 6.7 months to 11 years).

Focusing on those patients who achieve complete remissions after CAR T-cell therapy could help investigators isolate late events that are most likely related to CAR T cells, Dr. Cordeiro said.

Dr. Cordeiro reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cordeiro A et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 223.

SAN DIEGO – Longer-term follow-up of patients treated with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells for hematologic malignancies indicates that the altered cells are generally safe, with most late events being mild in nature and possibly related to therapies delivered before or after CAR T cells, investigators reported.

Among patients treated with CD19-targeted CAR T cells for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the most frequent late adverse event was hypogammaglobulinemia, which occurred in 29 of 48 patients evaluated, reported Ana Cordeiro, MD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

“Our results suggest that CD19 CAR T cells are safe,” Dr. Cordeiro said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “However, continuing with prospective systematic and long-term follow-up of these patients is required for better understanding of these late effects.”

Dr. Cordeiro and colleagues studied a total of 60 patients who were enrolled in a phase 1/2 trial at their center of a CD19-targeted CAR T-cell construct and survived for at least 1 year.

The goal of the study was to describe complications that occurred or persisted beyond 90 days after CAR T-cell infusion.

The cohort included 43 patients treated for NHL and 17 treated for CLL. Patients with CLL were followed for a median of 27.5 months, and patients with NHL were followed for a median of 23.8 months.

As of September 2018, 47 patients were still alive, including 15 patients with CLL (88%) and 32 patients with NHL (74%). Of the 17 patients who died, 10 died from progressive disease (2 from CLL and 8 from NHL), and 3 patients died from nonrelapse causes associated with complications from subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT), including 1 patient from graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and infection, 1 from infection, and 1 from cerberovascular accident/thrombotic microangiopathy.

Of 38 patients who received additional therapies, 17 had subsequent CAR T-cell infusions under the same protocol, and 16 went on to allo-HCT. Treatments for the remaining five patients were not specified.

Of the 22 patients who did not receive additional treatment for their primary malignancies, 21 were in ongoing complete remission following a single CAR T-cell infusion after a median follow-up of 28 months. However, two patients in this group did require treatment for therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS). The remaining patient had a small CLL clone at last follow-up.

Late adverse events included the following:

• Late significant cytopenias in three of 19 patients evaluated.
• Late hypogammaglobulinemia in 29 of 48 evaluated patients.
• A total of 138 late infections in 31 of the 60 patients.
• Subsequent malignancies in 10 of the 60 patients, including t-MDS, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and noninvasive bladder cancer.
• Late immune-related events in seven patients.
• Late neurogenic/psychiatric events, including one case each of transient ischemic attack at 3.8 months, encephalopathy and myoclonic seizure in the setting of chemotherapy, and a fatal cerebrovascular accident in the setting of allo-HCT and thrombotic microangiopathy. These patients did not have acute neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Cordeiro noted. In addition, three patients experienced exacerbation of depression or anxiety following infusion.
• GVHD in nine patients at a median time from allo-HCT to first CAR T-cell infusion of 46.3 months (range, 6.7 months to 11 years).

Focusing on those patients who achieve complete remissions after CAR T-cell therapy could help investigators isolate late events that are most likely related to CAR T cells, Dr. Cordeiro said.

Dr. Cordeiro reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cordeiro A et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 223.

Cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) have a favorable adverse event profile and are safe as monotherapy for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, according to an integrated analysis of several clinical trials published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.

The drug causes transient lymphopenia, as is to be expected from its mechanism of action, but most patients who receive cladribine do not have grade 3 or 4 lymphopenia, the authors wrote. In general, cladribine is not associated with an increased risk of infections or malignancy.

Data indicate that cladribine’s mechanism of action contributes to its durable clinical effect, despite the brief treatment periods. Clinical trials have provided information about the treatment’s safety and tolerability. To examine the treatment’s long-term safety, Stuart Cook, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and his colleagues pooled data for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy or placebo in three phase 3 clinical trials (CLARITY, CLARITY Extension, and ORACLE-MS) and followed up in the PREMIERE registry. The investigators called these patients the monotherapy oral cohort.

To investigate the potential associations between cladribine and rarer adverse events such as malignancies, Dr. Cook and his colleagues examined data from patients with MS who received cladribine, regardless of the formulation or route of administration, or placebo (the all-exposed cohort). This cohort included data from the ONWARD trial, in which patients received cladribine tablets or placebo in combination with interferon-beta, as well as data from five trials in which patients received parenteral cladribine or placebo.

The monotherapy oral cohort included 923 patients who received cladribine and 641 who received placebo. The median age at enrollment in this cohort was approximately 36 years. The majority of patients were women and disease characteristics were balanced between arms. The all-exposed cohort included 1,926 patients who received cladribine and 802 who received placebo. The demographic characteristics of this cohort were similar to those of the monotherapy oral cohort.

In the monotherapy oral cohort, the incidence rate of treatment-emergent adverse events, in adjusted adverse events per 100 patient-years, was 103.29 for the active group versus 94.26 for controls. Lymphopenia (7.94 vs. 1.06) and decreased lymphocyte count (0.78 vs. 0.10) occurred more frequently in the active group than in the placebo group.

Herpes zoster also occurred more frequently in the cladribine group (0.83 vs. 0.20). However, cladribine was not associated with systemic serious disseminated herpes zoster. Furthermore, the investigators found no overall increased risk of infections, including opportunistic infections, with cladribine tablets versus placebo, except for herpes zoster.

In addition, Dr. Cook and his colleagues found no increase in malignancy rates among patients who received cladribine, compared with those who received placebo. They also found no increase in the incidence of malignancies over time in the cladribine group.

The adverse event profile for cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy has been well characterized, the investigators wrote. The results of this analysis are broadly similar to the short-term adverse event results reported in the individual trials.

EMD Serono and Merck Serono, two affiliates of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany, sponsored the study. Merck manufactures cladribine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cook S et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018 Nov 18. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.11.021.

Cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) have a favorable adverse event profile and are safe as monotherapy for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, according to an integrated analysis of several clinical trials published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.

The drug causes transient lymphopenia, as is to be expected from its mechanism of action, but most patients who receive cladribine do not have grade 3 or 4 lymphopenia, the authors wrote. In general, cladribine is not associated with an increased risk of infections or malignancy.

Data indicate that cladribine’s mechanism of action contributes to its durable clinical effect, despite the brief treatment periods. Clinical trials have provided information about the treatment’s safety and tolerability. To examine the treatment’s long-term safety, Stuart Cook, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and his colleagues pooled data for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy or placebo in three phase 3 clinical trials (CLARITY, CLARITY Extension, and ORACLE-MS) and followed up in the PREMIERE registry. The investigators called these patients the monotherapy oral cohort.

To investigate the potential associations between cladribine and rarer adverse events such as malignancies, Dr. Cook and his colleagues examined data from patients with MS who received cladribine, regardless of the formulation or route of administration, or placebo (the all-exposed cohort). This cohort included data from the ONWARD trial, in which patients received cladribine tablets or placebo in combination with interferon-beta, as well as data from five trials in which patients received parenteral cladribine or placebo.

The monotherapy oral cohort included 923 patients who received cladribine and 641 who received placebo. The median age at enrollment in this cohort was approximately 36 years. The majority of patients were women and disease characteristics were balanced between arms. The all-exposed cohort included 1,926 patients who received cladribine and 802 who received placebo. The demographic characteristics of this cohort were similar to those of the monotherapy oral cohort.

In the monotherapy oral cohort, the incidence rate of treatment-emergent adverse events, in adjusted adverse events per 100 patient-years, was 103.29 for the active group versus 94.26 for controls. Lymphopenia (7.94 vs. 1.06) and decreased lymphocyte count (0.78 vs. 0.10) occurred more frequently in the active group than in the placebo group.

Herpes zoster also occurred more frequently in the cladribine group (0.83 vs. 0.20). However, cladribine was not associated with systemic serious disseminated herpes zoster. Furthermore, the investigators found no overall increased risk of infections, including opportunistic infections, with cladribine tablets versus placebo, except for herpes zoster.

In addition, Dr. Cook and his colleagues found no increase in malignancy rates among patients who received cladribine, compared with those who received placebo. They also found no increase in the incidence of malignancies over time in the cladribine group.

The adverse event profile for cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy has been well characterized, the investigators wrote. The results of this analysis are broadly similar to the short-term adverse event results reported in the individual trials.

EMD Serono and Merck Serono, two affiliates of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany, sponsored the study. Merck manufactures cladribine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cook S et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018 Nov 18. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.11.021.

Cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) have a favorable adverse event profile and are safe as monotherapy for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, according to an integrated analysis of several clinical trials published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.

The drug causes transient lymphopenia, as is to be expected from its mechanism of action, but most patients who receive cladribine do not have grade 3 or 4 lymphopenia, the authors wrote. In general, cladribine is not associated with an increased risk of infections or malignancy.

Data indicate that cladribine’s mechanism of action contributes to its durable clinical effect, despite the brief treatment periods. Clinical trials have provided information about the treatment’s safety and tolerability. To examine the treatment’s long-term safety, Stuart Cook, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and his colleagues pooled data for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy or placebo in three phase 3 clinical trials (CLARITY, CLARITY Extension, and ORACLE-MS) and followed up in the PREMIERE registry. The investigators called these patients the monotherapy oral cohort.

To investigate the potential associations between cladribine and rarer adverse events such as malignancies, Dr. Cook and his colleagues examined data from patients with MS who received cladribine, regardless of the formulation or route of administration, or placebo (the all-exposed cohort). This cohort included data from the ONWARD trial, in which patients received cladribine tablets or placebo in combination with interferon-beta, as well as data from five trials in which patients received parenteral cladribine or placebo.

The monotherapy oral cohort included 923 patients who received cladribine and 641 who received placebo. The median age at enrollment in this cohort was approximately 36 years. The majority of patients were women and disease characteristics were balanced between arms. The all-exposed cohort included 1,926 patients who received cladribine and 802 who received placebo. The demographic characteristics of this cohort were similar to those of the monotherapy oral cohort.

In the monotherapy oral cohort, the incidence rate of treatment-emergent adverse events, in adjusted adverse events per 100 patient-years, was 103.29 for the active group versus 94.26 for controls. Lymphopenia (7.94 vs. 1.06) and decreased lymphocyte count (0.78 vs. 0.10) occurred more frequently in the active group than in the placebo group.

Herpes zoster also occurred more frequently in the cladribine group (0.83 vs. 0.20). However, cladribine was not associated with systemic serious disseminated herpes zoster. Furthermore, the investigators found no overall increased risk of infections, including opportunistic infections, with cladribine tablets versus placebo, except for herpes zoster.

In addition, Dr. Cook and his colleagues found no increase in malignancy rates among patients who received cladribine, compared with those who received placebo. They also found no increase in the incidence of malignancies over time in the cladribine group.

The adverse event profile for cladribine tablets (3.5 mg/kg) as monotherapy has been well characterized, the investigators wrote. The results of this analysis are broadly similar to the short-term adverse event results reported in the individual trials.

EMD Serono and Merck Serono, two affiliates of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany, sponsored the study. Merck manufactures cladribine.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cook S et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018 Nov 18. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.11.021.

Steven M. Baskin, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, recently answered the Migraine Resource Center’s questions about the benefits of behavioral therapy in the treatment of migraine and tension-type headache.
 

Alan M. Rapoport, MD: Could you please give a brief description of the 5 best modalities of behavioral therapy for migraine and tension-type headache? 
 

Steven M. Baskin, PhD: The most researched modalities that have a good evidence base for both migraine and tension-type headache (TTHA) are relaxation therapies that often combine abdominal breathing with some form of progressive relaxation, electromyography (EMG) biofeedback therapy where headache patients learn to decrease scalp and neck muscle tension utilizing muscular biofeedback, thermal biofeedback where migraine sufferers learn a way to warm their hands which often creates a low arousal state that may reduce brain hyperexcitability, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques to learn stress management. The combination of behavioral medicine techniques plus preventive pharmacological treatment has been showed to be more efficacious than either treatment alone. (Holroyd KA, et al. Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;1-12)

CBT to treat insomnia has also been shown to reverse many chronic migraine sufferers back to episodic migraine. (Smitherman TA, et al. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Reduce Chronic Migraine: A Sequential Bayesian Analysis. Headache 2018;58:1052-1059)
 

Dr. Rapoport: How do you identify a patient who may benefit from behavioral therapy over acute medication, and what is the first step that you suggest?
 

Dr. Baskin: Behavioral therapies for migraine management are typically preventive therapies that can and should be combined with medications to control acute attacks. There are behavioral principles that can maximize adherence to abortive agents in order to optimize acute care.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Which tends to work the best for migraine?
 

Dr. Baskin: What works best is to first do a good behavioral assessment of the frequency, duration, intensity, and disability level of their headaches as well as current stress levels, history, and adherence to drug and nondrug therapies, and psychiatric comorbidities. A program should then be developed that includes some combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions to address these issues. It is important to increase self-efficacy: patients’ belief in the ability to control the headache, belief in the ability to manage emotional reactivity to pain, and belief that they can achieve functionality in the presence of a significant headache disorder.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Who should not have biofeedback therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: Biofeedback has shown to be effective in treating migraine and TTHA. It has not been shown to be effective in treating trigeminal autonomic cephalgias (TACs) such as cluster headache. Like pharmacological therapies, it is less effective in chronic migraine that is daily and constant. A patient with severe psychiatric disorder should be treated for their psychiatric disorder before beginning biofeedback therapy.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Some doctors see patients twice per week for several months. What is your typical routine for behavioral therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: We have a variety of programs. For complicated patients, we tend to see them weekly and have a very systematic program of biofeedback and CBT for approximately 12 to 15 sessions. This may include treating psychiatric comorbidities. We see many other patients for 1 or 2 sessions of biofeedback to try to effect physiological learning and for 1 or 2 sessions of CBT to help them manage stressors and learn coping skills that they can use to help manage migraines and life stress.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Does behavioral medicine work best in conjunction with preventive medications, or on its own?

Dr. Baskin: Many patients do well with a behavioral treatment as a preventive therapy and a pharmacologic agent to optimize acute care. I believe that many patients with higher frequency migraine with psychological issues or ongoing stressors do best with a combination of preventive pharmacologic therapy and behavior therapy. Any migraine patient with sleep issues should learn CBT for insomnia. 

Dr. Rapoport: Is there evidence that suggests behavioral therapy can help patients at various ages manage their migraines?

Dr. Baskin: There is both adult and child data on behavioral therapy for migraine.  An excellent study was done in children and adolescents by Powers et al. It showed that adding 10 sessions of CBT to preventive amitriptyline therapy, compared to adding headache education, significantly reduced the number of headache days, level of disability, and kids with a better than 50% decrease in days of headache compared to amitriptyline, plus headache education control in chronic migraine patients.  (Powers SW et al. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Plus Amitriptyline for Chronic Migraine in Children and Adolescents: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2013;310(24):2622-2630)

Dr. Rapoport: A recent MedPage Today article noted that “anxiety may complicate migraine more than depression with greater long-term persistence, greater headache-related disability, and reduced satisfaction with acute therapies.” Could you please elaborate on why this may be the case? 

Dr. Baskin: Anxiety disorders are often based on feeling threat. They are always associated with avoidance behaviors. Headache sufferers with significant anxiety tend to overestimate the probability of danger (migraine) and perceive it as more unmanageable and threatening than objective reality. They are often very sensitive to medication side effects and benign somatic sensations. They sometimes take medications pre-emptively, because of their fear of getting a migraine, which may lead to medication misuse or overuse. The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in migraineurs (ranging from 51-58%) is almost twice that of major depression.

Please write to us at Neurology Reviews Migraine Resource Center ([email protected]) with your opinions.

Alan M. Rapoport, M.D.

Editor-in-Chief

Migraine Resource Center

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Los Angeles, California

Steven M. Baskin, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, recently answered the Migraine Resource Center’s questions about the benefits of behavioral therapy in the treatment of migraine and tension-type headache.
 

Alan M. Rapoport, MD: Could you please give a brief description of the 5 best modalities of behavioral therapy for migraine and tension-type headache? 
 

Steven M. Baskin, PhD: The most researched modalities that have a good evidence base for both migraine and tension-type headache (TTHA) are relaxation therapies that often combine abdominal breathing with some form of progressive relaxation, electromyography (EMG) biofeedback therapy where headache patients learn to decrease scalp and neck muscle tension utilizing muscular biofeedback, thermal biofeedback where migraine sufferers learn a way to warm their hands which often creates a low arousal state that may reduce brain hyperexcitability, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques to learn stress management. The combination of behavioral medicine techniques plus preventive pharmacological treatment has been showed to be more efficacious than either treatment alone. (Holroyd KA, et al. Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;1-12)

CBT to treat insomnia has also been shown to reverse many chronic migraine sufferers back to episodic migraine. (Smitherman TA, et al. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Reduce Chronic Migraine: A Sequential Bayesian Analysis. Headache 2018;58:1052-1059)
 

Dr. Rapoport: How do you identify a patient who may benefit from behavioral therapy over acute medication, and what is the first step that you suggest?
 

Dr. Baskin: Behavioral therapies for migraine management are typically preventive therapies that can and should be combined with medications to control acute attacks. There are behavioral principles that can maximize adherence to abortive agents in order to optimize acute care.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Which tends to work the best for migraine?
 

Dr. Baskin: What works best is to first do a good behavioral assessment of the frequency, duration, intensity, and disability level of their headaches as well as current stress levels, history, and adherence to drug and nondrug therapies, and psychiatric comorbidities. A program should then be developed that includes some combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions to address these issues. It is important to increase self-efficacy: patients’ belief in the ability to control the headache, belief in the ability to manage emotional reactivity to pain, and belief that they can achieve functionality in the presence of a significant headache disorder.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Who should not have biofeedback therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: Biofeedback has shown to be effective in treating migraine and TTHA. It has not been shown to be effective in treating trigeminal autonomic cephalgias (TACs) such as cluster headache. Like pharmacological therapies, it is less effective in chronic migraine that is daily and constant. A patient with severe psychiatric disorder should be treated for their psychiatric disorder before beginning biofeedback therapy.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Some doctors see patients twice per week for several months. What is your typical routine for behavioral therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: We have a variety of programs. For complicated patients, we tend to see them weekly and have a very systematic program of biofeedback and CBT for approximately 12 to 15 sessions. This may include treating psychiatric comorbidities. We see many other patients for 1 or 2 sessions of biofeedback to try to effect physiological learning and for 1 or 2 sessions of CBT to help them manage stressors and learn coping skills that they can use to help manage migraines and life stress.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Does behavioral medicine work best in conjunction with preventive medications, or on its own?

Dr. Baskin: Many patients do well with a behavioral treatment as a preventive therapy and a pharmacologic agent to optimize acute care. I believe that many patients with higher frequency migraine with psychological issues or ongoing stressors do best with a combination of preventive pharmacologic therapy and behavior therapy. Any migraine patient with sleep issues should learn CBT for insomnia. 

Dr. Rapoport: Is there evidence that suggests behavioral therapy can help patients at various ages manage their migraines?

Dr. Baskin: There is both adult and child data on behavioral therapy for migraine.  An excellent study was done in children and adolescents by Powers et al. It showed that adding 10 sessions of CBT to preventive amitriptyline therapy, compared to adding headache education, significantly reduced the number of headache days, level of disability, and kids with a better than 50% decrease in days of headache compared to amitriptyline, plus headache education control in chronic migraine patients.  (Powers SW et al. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Plus Amitriptyline for Chronic Migraine in Children and Adolescents: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2013;310(24):2622-2630)

Dr. Rapoport: A recent MedPage Today article noted that “anxiety may complicate migraine more than depression with greater long-term persistence, greater headache-related disability, and reduced satisfaction with acute therapies.” Could you please elaborate on why this may be the case? 

Dr. Baskin: Anxiety disorders are often based on feeling threat. They are always associated with avoidance behaviors. Headache sufferers with significant anxiety tend to overestimate the probability of danger (migraine) and perceive it as more unmanageable and threatening than objective reality. They are often very sensitive to medication side effects and benign somatic sensations. They sometimes take medications pre-emptively, because of their fear of getting a migraine, which may lead to medication misuse or overuse. The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in migraineurs (ranging from 51-58%) is almost twice that of major depression.

Please write to us at Neurology Reviews Migraine Resource Center ([email protected]) with your opinions.

Alan M. Rapoport, M.D.

Editor-in-Chief

Migraine Resource Center

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Los Angeles, California

Steven M. Baskin, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, recently answered the Migraine Resource Center’s questions about the benefits of behavioral therapy in the treatment of migraine and tension-type headache.
 

Alan M. Rapoport, MD: Could you please give a brief description of the 5 best modalities of behavioral therapy for migraine and tension-type headache? 
 

Steven M. Baskin, PhD: The most researched modalities that have a good evidence base for both migraine and tension-type headache (TTHA) are relaxation therapies that often combine abdominal breathing with some form of progressive relaxation, electromyography (EMG) biofeedback therapy where headache patients learn to decrease scalp and neck muscle tension utilizing muscular biofeedback, thermal biofeedback where migraine sufferers learn a way to warm their hands which often creates a low arousal state that may reduce brain hyperexcitability, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques to learn stress management. The combination of behavioral medicine techniques plus preventive pharmacological treatment has been showed to be more efficacious than either treatment alone. (Holroyd KA, et al. Effect of preventive (β blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;1-12)

CBT to treat insomnia has also been shown to reverse many chronic migraine sufferers back to episodic migraine. (Smitherman TA, et al. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia to Reduce Chronic Migraine: A Sequential Bayesian Analysis. Headache 2018;58:1052-1059)
 

Dr. Rapoport: How do you identify a patient who may benefit from behavioral therapy over acute medication, and what is the first step that you suggest?
 

Dr. Baskin: Behavioral therapies for migraine management are typically preventive therapies that can and should be combined with medications to control acute attacks. There are behavioral principles that can maximize adherence to abortive agents in order to optimize acute care.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Which tends to work the best for migraine?
 

Dr. Baskin: What works best is to first do a good behavioral assessment of the frequency, duration, intensity, and disability level of their headaches as well as current stress levels, history, and adherence to drug and nondrug therapies, and psychiatric comorbidities. A program should then be developed that includes some combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions to address these issues. It is important to increase self-efficacy: patients’ belief in the ability to control the headache, belief in the ability to manage emotional reactivity to pain, and belief that they can achieve functionality in the presence of a significant headache disorder.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Who should not have biofeedback therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: Biofeedback has shown to be effective in treating migraine and TTHA. It has not been shown to be effective in treating trigeminal autonomic cephalgias (TACs) such as cluster headache. Like pharmacological therapies, it is less effective in chronic migraine that is daily and constant. A patient with severe psychiatric disorder should be treated for their psychiatric disorder before beginning biofeedback therapy.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Some doctors see patients twice per week for several months. What is your typical routine for behavioral therapy?
 

Dr. Baskin: We have a variety of programs. For complicated patients, we tend to see them weekly and have a very systematic program of biofeedback and CBT for approximately 12 to 15 sessions. This may include treating psychiatric comorbidities. We see many other patients for 1 or 2 sessions of biofeedback to try to effect physiological learning and for 1 or 2 sessions of CBT to help them manage stressors and learn coping skills that they can use to help manage migraines and life stress.
 

Dr. Rapoport: Does behavioral medicine work best in conjunction with preventive medications, or on its own?

Dr. Baskin: Many patients do well with a behavioral treatment as a preventive therapy and a pharmacologic agent to optimize acute care. I believe that many patients with higher frequency migraine with psychological issues or ongoing stressors do best with a combination of preventive pharmacologic therapy and behavior therapy. Any migraine patient with sleep issues should learn CBT for insomnia. 

Dr. Rapoport: Is there evidence that suggests behavioral therapy can help patients at various ages manage their migraines?

Dr. Baskin: There is both adult and child data on behavioral therapy for migraine.  An excellent study was done in children and adolescents by Powers et al. It showed that adding 10 sessions of CBT to preventive amitriptyline therapy, compared to adding headache education, significantly reduced the number of headache days, level of disability, and kids with a better than 50% decrease in days of headache compared to amitriptyline, plus headache education control in chronic migraine patients.  (Powers SW et al. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Plus Amitriptyline for Chronic Migraine in Children and Adolescents: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2013;310(24):2622-2630)

Dr. Rapoport: A recent MedPage Today article noted that “anxiety may complicate migraine more than depression with greater long-term persistence, greater headache-related disability, and reduced satisfaction with acute therapies.” Could you please elaborate on why this may be the case? 

Dr. Baskin: Anxiety disorders are often based on feeling threat. They are always associated with avoidance behaviors. Headache sufferers with significant anxiety tend to overestimate the probability of danger (migraine) and perceive it as more unmanageable and threatening than objective reality. They are often very sensitive to medication side effects and benign somatic sensations. They sometimes take medications pre-emptively, because of their fear of getting a migraine, which may lead to medication misuse or overuse. The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders in migraineurs (ranging from 51-58%) is almost twice that of major depression.

Please write to us at Neurology Reviews Migraine Resource Center ([email protected]) with your opinions.

Alan M. Rapoport, M.D.

Editor-in-Chief

Migraine Resource Center

Clinical Professor of Neurology

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Los Angeles, California

SAN DIEGO – For patients 65 years or younger with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have undergone autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Revlimid) can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS), suggest results of the phase, 3 randomized MCL0208 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 39 months, the 3-year PFS in an intention-to-treat analysis was 80% for patients treated with ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance, compared with 64% for patients treated with ASCT alone, reported Marco Ladetto, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo in Alessandria, Italy.

“Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant has substantial clinical activity in mantle cell lymphoma in terms of progression-free survival,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “Follow-up is still too short for meaningful overall survival considerations.”

Dr. Ladetto and his colleagues at centers in Italy and Portugal enrolled patients aged 18-65 years with previously untreated MCL stage III or IV, or stage II with bulky disease (5 cm or greater), and good performance status.

The patients first underwent induction with three cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone), which was followed by treatment with rituximab plus high-dose cyclophosphamide and two cycles of rituximab with high-dose cytarabine. Stem cells were collected after the first course of the latter regimen.

The patients then underwent conditioning with BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT.

Following ASCT, patients with complete or partial remissions were randomized either to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide 15 mg for 21 of 28 days for each cycle or to observation.

Of the 303 patients initially enrolled, 248 went on to ASCT, and 205 went on to randomization – 104 assigned to maintenance and 101 assigned to observation.

A total of 52 patients completed 2 years of maintenance: Of the rest, 2 patients died from toxicities (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and pneumonia), 7 had disease progression, 41 dropped out for nonprogression reasons, and 2 patients were still in maintenance at the time of the data cutoff. In this arm, 6 of 8 patients with partial responses converted to complete responses by the end of maintenance. More than a quarter of patients (28%) received less than 25% of the planned lenalidomide dose.

In the observation arm, 1 patient died from pneumonia, 20 had disease progression, 3 were lost to follow-up, 6 were still under observation, and 71 completed observation. In this arm, 1 of 4 patients with a partial response converted to a complete response at the end of the observation period.

Despite suboptimal dosing in a large proportion of patients, the PFS primary endpoint showed significant benefit for lenalidomide, with an unstratified hazard ratio of 0.52 (P = .015) and a stratified HR of 0.51 (P = .013).

At a median follow-up of 39 months from randomization, 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93% with lenalidomide and 86% with observation, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities occurred in 63% of patients in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 11% in the observation arm. The respective rates of granulocytopenia were 59% vs. 10%. Nonhematological grade 3 toxicity was comparable in the two arms except for grade 3 or 4 infections, which were more common with lenalidomide. Seven patients in the lenalidomide arm and three patients in the observation arm developed second cancers.

Dr. Ladetto noted that difficulties in delivering the planned dose of lenalidomide may have been caused by an already-stressed hematopoietic compartment; he commented that the question of the relative benefit of a fixed lenalidomide schedule or an until-progression approach still needs to be answered.

Additionally, the induction schedule used in the trial, while feasible, is not superior to “less cumbersome and possibly less toxic regimens,” he said.

The study was supported by the Italian Lymphoma Foundation (Fondazione Italiana Linfomi) with the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. Dr. Ladetto reported honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Acerta, Janssen, AbbVie, and Sandoz, as well as off-label use of lenalidomide.

SOURCE: Ladetto M et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – For patients 65 years or younger with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have undergone autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Revlimid) can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS), suggest results of the phase, 3 randomized MCL0208 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 39 months, the 3-year PFS in an intention-to-treat analysis was 80% for patients treated with ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance, compared with 64% for patients treated with ASCT alone, reported Marco Ladetto, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo in Alessandria, Italy.

“Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant has substantial clinical activity in mantle cell lymphoma in terms of progression-free survival,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “Follow-up is still too short for meaningful overall survival considerations.”

Dr. Ladetto and his colleagues at centers in Italy and Portugal enrolled patients aged 18-65 years with previously untreated MCL stage III or IV, or stage II with bulky disease (5 cm or greater), and good performance status.

The patients first underwent induction with three cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone), which was followed by treatment with rituximab plus high-dose cyclophosphamide and two cycles of rituximab with high-dose cytarabine. Stem cells were collected after the first course of the latter regimen.

The patients then underwent conditioning with BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT.

Following ASCT, patients with complete or partial remissions were randomized either to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide 15 mg for 21 of 28 days for each cycle or to observation.

Of the 303 patients initially enrolled, 248 went on to ASCT, and 205 went on to randomization – 104 assigned to maintenance and 101 assigned to observation.

A total of 52 patients completed 2 years of maintenance: Of the rest, 2 patients died from toxicities (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and pneumonia), 7 had disease progression, 41 dropped out for nonprogression reasons, and 2 patients were still in maintenance at the time of the data cutoff. In this arm, 6 of 8 patients with partial responses converted to complete responses by the end of maintenance. More than a quarter of patients (28%) received less than 25% of the planned lenalidomide dose.

In the observation arm, 1 patient died from pneumonia, 20 had disease progression, 3 were lost to follow-up, 6 were still under observation, and 71 completed observation. In this arm, 1 of 4 patients with a partial response converted to a complete response at the end of the observation period.

Despite suboptimal dosing in a large proportion of patients, the PFS primary endpoint showed significant benefit for lenalidomide, with an unstratified hazard ratio of 0.52 (P = .015) and a stratified HR of 0.51 (P = .013).

At a median follow-up of 39 months from randomization, 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93% with lenalidomide and 86% with observation, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities occurred in 63% of patients in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 11% in the observation arm. The respective rates of granulocytopenia were 59% vs. 10%. Nonhematological grade 3 toxicity was comparable in the two arms except for grade 3 or 4 infections, which were more common with lenalidomide. Seven patients in the lenalidomide arm and three patients in the observation arm developed second cancers.

Dr. Ladetto noted that difficulties in delivering the planned dose of lenalidomide may have been caused by an already-stressed hematopoietic compartment; he commented that the question of the relative benefit of a fixed lenalidomide schedule or an until-progression approach still needs to be answered.

Additionally, the induction schedule used in the trial, while feasible, is not superior to “less cumbersome and possibly less toxic regimens,” he said.

The study was supported by the Italian Lymphoma Foundation (Fondazione Italiana Linfomi) with the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. Dr. Ladetto reported honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Acerta, Janssen, AbbVie, and Sandoz, as well as off-label use of lenalidomide.

SOURCE: Ladetto M et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – For patients 65 years or younger with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have undergone autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Revlimid) can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS), suggest results of the phase, 3 randomized MCL0208 trial.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a median follow-up of 39 months, the 3-year PFS in an intention-to-treat analysis was 80% for patients treated with ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance, compared with 64% for patients treated with ASCT alone, reported Marco Ladetto, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo in Alessandria, Italy.

“Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant has substantial clinical activity in mantle cell lymphoma in terms of progression-free survival,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “Follow-up is still too short for meaningful overall survival considerations.”

Dr. Ladetto and his colleagues at centers in Italy and Portugal enrolled patients aged 18-65 years with previously untreated MCL stage III or IV, or stage II with bulky disease (5 cm or greater), and good performance status.

The patients first underwent induction with three cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone), which was followed by treatment with rituximab plus high-dose cyclophosphamide and two cycles of rituximab with high-dose cytarabine. Stem cells were collected after the first course of the latter regimen.

The patients then underwent conditioning with BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT.

Following ASCT, patients with complete or partial remissions were randomized either to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide 15 mg for 21 of 28 days for each cycle or to observation.

Of the 303 patients initially enrolled, 248 went on to ASCT, and 205 went on to randomization – 104 assigned to maintenance and 101 assigned to observation.

A total of 52 patients completed 2 years of maintenance: Of the rest, 2 patients died from toxicities (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and pneumonia), 7 had disease progression, 41 dropped out for nonprogression reasons, and 2 patients were still in maintenance at the time of the data cutoff. In this arm, 6 of 8 patients with partial responses converted to complete responses by the end of maintenance. More than a quarter of patients (28%) received less than 25% of the planned lenalidomide dose.

In the observation arm, 1 patient died from pneumonia, 20 had disease progression, 3 were lost to follow-up, 6 were still under observation, and 71 completed observation. In this arm, 1 of 4 patients with a partial response converted to a complete response at the end of the observation period.

Despite suboptimal dosing in a large proportion of patients, the PFS primary endpoint showed significant benefit for lenalidomide, with an unstratified hazard ratio of 0.52 (P = .015) and a stratified HR of 0.51 (P = .013).

At a median follow-up of 39 months from randomization, 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93% with lenalidomide and 86% with observation, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities occurred in 63% of patients in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 11% in the observation arm. The respective rates of granulocytopenia were 59% vs. 10%. Nonhematological grade 3 toxicity was comparable in the two arms except for grade 3 or 4 infections, which were more common with lenalidomide. Seven patients in the lenalidomide arm and three patients in the observation arm developed second cancers.

Dr. Ladetto noted that difficulties in delivering the planned dose of lenalidomide may have been caused by an already-stressed hematopoietic compartment; he commented that the question of the relative benefit of a fixed lenalidomide schedule or an until-progression approach still needs to be answered.

Additionally, the induction schedule used in the trial, while feasible, is not superior to “less cumbersome and possibly less toxic regimens,” he said.

The study was supported by the Italian Lymphoma Foundation (Fondazione Italiana Linfomi) with the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. Dr. Ladetto reported honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Acerta, Janssen, AbbVie, and Sandoz, as well as off-label use of lenalidomide.

SOURCE: Ladetto M et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.

Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.

“It’s very promising ... to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president of Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.

Dr. Eid noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.

These results were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.

“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.

Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.

Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.

The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 and 57% of patients were female. More than half of the patients (60%) had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.

The median number of prior therapies was two and 13% of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit, disease progression, AEs unrelated to treatment, patient request, and other concerns.

The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).

The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.

The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.

The complete response rate was 27% (n = 8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n = 13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n = 21).

“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.

Ten percent of patients (n = 3) had stable disease, 13% (n = 4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n = 2).

The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.

Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.

Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.

This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics. Investigators reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moskowitz AJ et al. ASH 2018. Abstract 1691.

SAN DIEGO – Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.

Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.

“It’s very promising ... to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president of Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.

Dr. Eid noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.

These results were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.

“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.

Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.

Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.

The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 and 57% of patients were female. More than half of the patients (60%) had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.

The median number of prior therapies was two and 13% of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit, disease progression, AEs unrelated to treatment, patient request, and other concerns.

The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).

The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.

The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.

The complete response rate was 27% (n = 8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n = 13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n = 21).

“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.

Ten percent of patients (n = 3) had stable disease, 13% (n = 4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n = 2).

The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.

Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.

Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.

This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics. Investigators reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moskowitz AJ et al. ASH 2018. Abstract 1691.

SAN DIEGO – Nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin may be a new treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to investigators from the CheckMate 436 trial.

Interim results from this phase 1/2 trial revealed an overall response rate of 70%, including a complete response rate of 27%.

“It’s very promising ... to see this level of activity in this advanced, relapsed/refractory population,” said Joseph E. Eid, MD, senior vice president of Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is sponsoring CheckMate 436 in collaboration with Seattle Genetics.

Dr. Eid noted that adverse events (AEs) observed with this regimen were consistent with the safety profiles of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin alone.

These results were presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Dr. Eid noted that patients with relapsed or refractory PMBCL have limited treatment options.

“The initial therapy works well in 70% to 80% of patients but the patients who fail don’t have good options,” he said.

Prior research has shown that PMBCL is often characterized by overexpression of the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, and most PMBCL expresses CD30.

Dr. Eid said CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) was designed to “take advantage” of these characteristics by employing the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin.

The interim analysis of this trial included 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Their median age at enrollment was 35.5 and 57% of patients were female. More than half of the patients (60%) had refractory disease, 23% had relapsed disease, and 17% had both.

The median number of prior therapies was two and 13% of patients had prior autologous stem cell transplant.

The patients received nivolumab at 240 mg and brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At a median follow-up of 6.1 months, 10 patients were still on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation included maximum clinical benefit, disease progression, AEs unrelated to treatment, patient request, and other concerns.

The rate of treatment-related AEs was 83%. The most common of these were neutropenia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (20%), hyperthyroidism (13%), rash (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%).

Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (7%), decreased neutrophil count (7%), hypersensitivity (3%), diarrhea (3%), and maculopapular rash (3%).

The rate of serious treatment-related AEs was 10%. This included grade 3-4 diarrhea and maculopapular rash and grade 5 acute kidney injury.

The acute kidney injury was the only fatal AE considered treatment related. There were three other deaths in the trial, but they were considered unrelated to treatment.

The complete response rate was 27% (n = 8), and the partial response rate was 43% (n = 13), for an overall response rate of 70% (n = 21).

“The early indication is that 70% response is a pretty good outcome in a relapsed/refractory population that, otherwise, their outcome is pretty dismal,” Dr. Eid said.

Ten percent of patients (n = 3) had stable disease, 13% (n = 4) progressed, and investigators were unable to determine the status for 7% of patients (n = 2).

The median time to response was 1.3 months, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response and complete response were not reached.

Overall and progression-free survival data are not yet mature.

Still, the investigators concluded that nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin “may provide a new treatment option” for patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL.

This trial is supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seattle Genetics. Investigators reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moskowitz AJ et al. ASH 2018. Abstract 1691.

Survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma have a 14-fold greater risk for second cancers, compared with the general population, according to newly published data.

The subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) tend to follow specific patterns depending on the patient’s age at treatment, sex, treatment modality, and body region treated.

And although the risk of SMNs appears to be somewhat lower for patients treated in more recent decades, it is still significantly elevated, compared with that of the general population, according to Anna S. Holmqvist, MD, PhD, from Lund University (Sweden), and her colleagues.

“A major goal of the current study was to develop evidence with which to guide the screening of survivors of HL for the development of [solid] SMNs,” the investigators wrote in Cancer.

They examined at data from the Late Effects Study Group, a multinational cohort of patients aged 16 years or younger who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers from 1955 to 1986.

The current report is the third update from an expanded cohort, including data on 1,136 patients with a median follow-up of 26.6 years. The median patient age at diagnosis was 11 years and the patients were followed for 23,212 person-years following the Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis.

In all, 162 patients developed a total of 196 solid SMNs, including breast cancer in 54 patients, basal cell carcinoma in 34 patients, thyroid cancer in 30, colorectal cancer in 15, lung cancer in 11, other malignancies in 40, and disease site not available in 12 patients.

The cumulative incidence of any solid SMN 40 years after a diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma was 26.4%. The standardized incidence ratio for the entire cohort was 14.0, compared with the general population as derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Predisposing factors for breast cancer in females included a Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis from the ages of 10-16 years, and treatment with radiotherapy to the chest.

The patients at highest risk for subsequent development of lung cancer were males treated with chest radiotherapy before age 10 years. Those at highest risk for colorectal cancer were males and females who had received abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy and high-dose alkylating agents. Patients at highest risk for thyroid cancers were females who had been treated with radiotherapy to the neck before the age of 10.

The cumulative incidence for breast cancer by age 50 years for those at highest risk was 45.3%. The respective cumulative incidences for lung, colorectal, and thyroid cancers by age 50 were 4.2%, 9.5%, and 17.3%.

The investigators noted that patients treated more recently are likely to have received lower doses and volumes of radiotherapy, compared with patients treated in 1970s and earlier. “However, for the cohort of patients treated between 1955 and 1986, it is clear that continued surveillance for [solid] SMNs is essential because their risk continues to increase as these survivors enter their fourth and subsequent decades of life.”

No specific funding source for the study was reported. The authors made no financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Holmqvist AS et al. Cancer. 2018 Dec 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31807.

Survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma have a 14-fold greater risk for second cancers, compared with the general population, according to newly published data.

The subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) tend to follow specific patterns depending on the patient’s age at treatment, sex, treatment modality, and body region treated.

And although the risk of SMNs appears to be somewhat lower for patients treated in more recent decades, it is still significantly elevated, compared with that of the general population, according to Anna S. Holmqvist, MD, PhD, from Lund University (Sweden), and her colleagues.

“A major goal of the current study was to develop evidence with which to guide the screening of survivors of HL for the development of [solid] SMNs,” the investigators wrote in Cancer.

They examined at data from the Late Effects Study Group, a multinational cohort of patients aged 16 years or younger who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers from 1955 to 1986.

The current report is the third update from an expanded cohort, including data on 1,136 patients with a median follow-up of 26.6 years. The median patient age at diagnosis was 11 years and the patients were followed for 23,212 person-years following the Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis.

In all, 162 patients developed a total of 196 solid SMNs, including breast cancer in 54 patients, basal cell carcinoma in 34 patients, thyroid cancer in 30, colorectal cancer in 15, lung cancer in 11, other malignancies in 40, and disease site not available in 12 patients.

The cumulative incidence of any solid SMN 40 years after a diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma was 26.4%. The standardized incidence ratio for the entire cohort was 14.0, compared with the general population as derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Predisposing factors for breast cancer in females included a Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis from the ages of 10-16 years, and treatment with radiotherapy to the chest.

The patients at highest risk for subsequent development of lung cancer were males treated with chest radiotherapy before age 10 years. Those at highest risk for colorectal cancer were males and females who had received abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy and high-dose alkylating agents. Patients at highest risk for thyroid cancers were females who had been treated with radiotherapy to the neck before the age of 10.

The cumulative incidence for breast cancer by age 50 years for those at highest risk was 45.3%. The respective cumulative incidences for lung, colorectal, and thyroid cancers by age 50 were 4.2%, 9.5%, and 17.3%.

The investigators noted that patients treated more recently are likely to have received lower doses and volumes of radiotherapy, compared with patients treated in 1970s and earlier. “However, for the cohort of patients treated between 1955 and 1986, it is clear that continued surveillance for [solid] SMNs is essential because their risk continues to increase as these survivors enter their fourth and subsequent decades of life.”

No specific funding source for the study was reported. The authors made no financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Holmqvist AS et al. Cancer. 2018 Dec 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31807.

Survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma have a 14-fold greater risk for second cancers, compared with the general population, according to newly published data.

The subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) tend to follow specific patterns depending on the patient’s age at treatment, sex, treatment modality, and body region treated.

And although the risk of SMNs appears to be somewhat lower for patients treated in more recent decades, it is still significantly elevated, compared with that of the general population, according to Anna S. Holmqvist, MD, PhD, from Lund University (Sweden), and her colleagues.

“A major goal of the current study was to develop evidence with which to guide the screening of survivors of HL for the development of [solid] SMNs,” the investigators wrote in Cancer.

They examined at data from the Late Effects Study Group, a multinational cohort of patients aged 16 years or younger who were treated for Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers from 1955 to 1986.

The current report is the third update from an expanded cohort, including data on 1,136 patients with a median follow-up of 26.6 years. The median patient age at diagnosis was 11 years and the patients were followed for 23,212 person-years following the Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis.

In all, 162 patients developed a total of 196 solid SMNs, including breast cancer in 54 patients, basal cell carcinoma in 34 patients, thyroid cancer in 30, colorectal cancer in 15, lung cancer in 11, other malignancies in 40, and disease site not available in 12 patients.

The cumulative incidence of any solid SMN 40 years after a diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma was 26.4%. The standardized incidence ratio for the entire cohort was 14.0, compared with the general population as derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Predisposing factors for breast cancer in females included a Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis from the ages of 10-16 years, and treatment with radiotherapy to the chest.

The patients at highest risk for subsequent development of lung cancer were males treated with chest radiotherapy before age 10 years. Those at highest risk for colorectal cancer were males and females who had received abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy and high-dose alkylating agents. Patients at highest risk for thyroid cancers were females who had been treated with radiotherapy to the neck before the age of 10.

The cumulative incidence for breast cancer by age 50 years for those at highest risk was 45.3%. The respective cumulative incidences for lung, colorectal, and thyroid cancers by age 50 were 4.2%, 9.5%, and 17.3%.

The investigators noted that patients treated more recently are likely to have received lower doses and volumes of radiotherapy, compared with patients treated in 1970s and earlier. “However, for the cohort of patients treated between 1955 and 1986, it is clear that continued surveillance for [solid] SMNs is essential because their risk continues to increase as these survivors enter their fourth and subsequent decades of life.”

No specific funding source for the study was reported. The authors made no financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Holmqvist AS et al. Cancer. 2018 Dec 17. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31807.

SAN DIEGO – A newly approved treatment regimen provides a survival benefit over standard therapy for patients with CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

In the ECHELON-2 trial, patients who received brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with patients who received standard treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results supported the recent U.S. approval of BV in combination with CHP for adults with previously untreated, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other CD30-expressing PTCLs.

“ECHELON-2 is the first prospective trial in peripheral T-cell lymphoma to show an overall survival benefit over CHOP,” said Steven M. Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with locations in New York and New Jersey.

Dr. Horwitz presented data from this trial at the ASH meeting. Results were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32984-2).

ECHELON-2 (NCT01777152) enrolled 452 patients with previously untreated, CD30-positive PTCL. Subtypes included ALK-positive or ALK-negative systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, PTCL not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Patients were randomized to receive BV-CHP plus placebo (n = 226) or CHOP plus placebo (n = 226) every 3 weeks for six to eight cycles.

At baseline, the median age was 58 in the BV-CHP arm and the CHOP arm. The majority of patients were male – 59% in the BV-CHP arm and 67% in the CHOP arm – and most patients had stage III/IV disease, 81% and 80%, respectively.

In all, 89% of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 81% in the CHOP arm completed six or more cycles of their assigned treatment.

The overall response rate was 83% in the BV-CHP arm and 72% in the CHOP arm (P = .0032). The complete response rates were 68% and 56%, respectively (P = .0066).

At a median follow-up of 36.2 months, the median PFS was 48.2 months in the BV-CHP arm and 20.8 months in the CHOP arm. The rate of death or progression was 42% in the BV-CHP arm and 55% in the CHOP arm (hazard ratio = 0.71, P = .011).

At a median follow-up of 42.1 months, the median OS was not reached in either treatment arm. The rate of death was 23% in the BV-CHP arm and 32% in the CHOP arm (HR = 0.66, P = .0244).

Dr. Horwitz noted that this study was not powered to determine differences in PFS or OS by PTCL subtypes.

BV-CHP had a safety profile comparable with that of CHOP, Dr. Horwitz said.

The rate of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-CHP arm and 98% in the CHOP arm. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 66% and 65% of patients, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 39% and 38%, respectively.

Three percent of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 4% of those in the CHOP arm had fatal AEs.

The study was funded by Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Horwitz reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horwitz S et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 997.

SAN DIEGO – A newly approved treatment regimen provides a survival benefit over standard therapy for patients with CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

In the ECHELON-2 trial, patients who received brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with patients who received standard treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results supported the recent U.S. approval of BV in combination with CHP for adults with previously untreated, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other CD30-expressing PTCLs.

“ECHELON-2 is the first prospective trial in peripheral T-cell lymphoma to show an overall survival benefit over CHOP,” said Steven M. Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with locations in New York and New Jersey.

Dr. Horwitz presented data from this trial at the ASH meeting. Results were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32984-2).

ECHELON-2 (NCT01777152) enrolled 452 patients with previously untreated, CD30-positive PTCL. Subtypes included ALK-positive or ALK-negative systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, PTCL not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Patients were randomized to receive BV-CHP plus placebo (n = 226) or CHOP plus placebo (n = 226) every 3 weeks for six to eight cycles.

At baseline, the median age was 58 in the BV-CHP arm and the CHOP arm. The majority of patients were male – 59% in the BV-CHP arm and 67% in the CHOP arm – and most patients had stage III/IV disease, 81% and 80%, respectively.

In all, 89% of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 81% in the CHOP arm completed six or more cycles of their assigned treatment.

The overall response rate was 83% in the BV-CHP arm and 72% in the CHOP arm (P = .0032). The complete response rates were 68% and 56%, respectively (P = .0066).

At a median follow-up of 36.2 months, the median PFS was 48.2 months in the BV-CHP arm and 20.8 months in the CHOP arm. The rate of death or progression was 42% in the BV-CHP arm and 55% in the CHOP arm (hazard ratio = 0.71, P = .011).

At a median follow-up of 42.1 months, the median OS was not reached in either treatment arm. The rate of death was 23% in the BV-CHP arm and 32% in the CHOP arm (HR = 0.66, P = .0244).

Dr. Horwitz noted that this study was not powered to determine differences in PFS or OS by PTCL subtypes.

BV-CHP had a safety profile comparable with that of CHOP, Dr. Horwitz said.

The rate of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-CHP arm and 98% in the CHOP arm. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 66% and 65% of patients, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 39% and 38%, respectively.

Three percent of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 4% of those in the CHOP arm had fatal AEs.

The study was funded by Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Horwitz reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horwitz S et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 997.

SAN DIEGO – A newly approved treatment regimen provides a survival benefit over standard therapy for patients with CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

In the ECHELON-2 trial, patients who received brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with patients who received standard treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).

These results supported the recent U.S. approval of BV in combination with CHP for adults with previously untreated, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma or other CD30-expressing PTCLs.

“ECHELON-2 is the first prospective trial in peripheral T-cell lymphoma to show an overall survival benefit over CHOP,” said Steven M. Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with locations in New York and New Jersey.

Dr. Horwitz presented data from this trial at the ASH meeting. Results were simultaneously published in the Lancet (2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32984-2).

ECHELON-2 (NCT01777152) enrolled 452 patients with previously untreated, CD30-positive PTCL. Subtypes included ALK-positive or ALK-negative systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, PTCL not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Patients were randomized to receive BV-CHP plus placebo (n = 226) or CHOP plus placebo (n = 226) every 3 weeks for six to eight cycles.

At baseline, the median age was 58 in the BV-CHP arm and the CHOP arm. The majority of patients were male – 59% in the BV-CHP arm and 67% in the CHOP arm – and most patients had stage III/IV disease, 81% and 80%, respectively.

In all, 89% of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 81% in the CHOP arm completed six or more cycles of their assigned treatment.

The overall response rate was 83% in the BV-CHP arm and 72% in the CHOP arm (P = .0032). The complete response rates were 68% and 56%, respectively (P = .0066).

At a median follow-up of 36.2 months, the median PFS was 48.2 months in the BV-CHP arm and 20.8 months in the CHOP arm. The rate of death or progression was 42% in the BV-CHP arm and 55% in the CHOP arm (hazard ratio = 0.71, P = .011).

At a median follow-up of 42.1 months, the median OS was not reached in either treatment arm. The rate of death was 23% in the BV-CHP arm and 32% in the CHOP arm (HR = 0.66, P = .0244).

Dr. Horwitz noted that this study was not powered to determine differences in PFS or OS by PTCL subtypes.

BV-CHP had a safety profile comparable with that of CHOP, Dr. Horwitz said.

The rate of adverse events (AEs) was 99% in the BV-CHP arm and 98% in the CHOP arm. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 66% and 65% of patients, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 39% and 38%, respectively.

Three percent of patients in the BV-CHP arm and 4% of those in the CHOP arm had fatal AEs.

The study was funded by Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Horwitz reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horwitz S et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 997.

The efficacy and side effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in severe pediatric epilepsies are similar to those of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), according to a review published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. “Careful down-titration of benzodiazepines is essential to minimize sedation with adjunctive CBD,” the authors said.

Although CBD’s antiepileptic mechanisms “are not fully elucidated, it is clear that administration of CBD as adjunct therapy decreases seizure frequency in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome,” wrote Shayma Ali, a doctoral student in the department of pediatrics and child health at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, and her colleagues. “Contrary to public expectation of miraculous results, CBD has a similar antiepileptic and side effect profile to other AEDs. Nevertheless, as individual children with these developmental and epileptic encephalopathies are often refractory to available AEDs, the addition of another potentially effective therapeutic medicine will be warmly welcomed by families and physicians.”

The FDA approved Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical-grade oral solution that is 98% CBD, in June of 2018. In September of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration classified it as a Schedule V controlled substance. Patients’ use of nonpharmaceutical grade CBD products, including those combined with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “raises concerns about the use of products with THC on the developing brain,” the review authors said.
 

Randomized trials

Three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome found that CBD, compared with placebo, results in greater median seizure reductions (38%-41% vs. 13%-19%) and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients with 50% reductions in convulsive or drop seizures; 39%-46% vs. 14%-27%).

Common adverse effects include somnolence, diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, lethargy, pyrexia, and vomiting. Hepatic transaminases became elevated in some patients, and this result occurred more often in patients taking valproate.

No phase 2 or phase 3 trials have assessed the efficacy of CBD without coadministration of other AEDs, and CBD’s efficacy may relate to its impact on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered AEDs. “The most important clinical interaction is between CBD and clobazam, as [the dose of] clobazam often needs to be lowered because of excessive sedation,” wrote Ms. Ali and her colleagues. CBD inhibits CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 – enzymes that are involved in clobazam metabolism – which results in high plasma concentrations of clobazam’s active metabolite, norclobazam. Plasma levels of topiramate, rufinamide, zonisamide, and eslicarbazepine also may increase when these drugs are taken with CBD.
 

Challenges and opportunities

Of the hundreds of compounds in the marijuana plant, CBD “has the most evidence of antiepileptic efficacy and does not have the psychoactive effects” of THC, the authors said. Little evidence supports the combination of THC and CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In addition, research indicates that THC can have a proconvulsive effect in animal models and harm the development of the human brain.

Investigators are evaluating alternative routes of CBD delivery to avoid first-pass metabolism, such as oromucosal sprays, transdermal gels, eye drops, intranasal sprays, and rectal suppositories. “Alternative methods of administration ... deserve consideration, particularly for the developmental and epileptic encephalopathies population, as administration of oral medication can be challenging,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali S et al. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14087.

The efficacy and side effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in severe pediatric epilepsies are similar to those of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), according to a review published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. “Careful down-titration of benzodiazepines is essential to minimize sedation with adjunctive CBD,” the authors said.

Although CBD’s antiepileptic mechanisms “are not fully elucidated, it is clear that administration of CBD as adjunct therapy decreases seizure frequency in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome,” wrote Shayma Ali, a doctoral student in the department of pediatrics and child health at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, and her colleagues. “Contrary to public expectation of miraculous results, CBD has a similar antiepileptic and side effect profile to other AEDs. Nevertheless, as individual children with these developmental and epileptic encephalopathies are often refractory to available AEDs, the addition of another potentially effective therapeutic medicine will be warmly welcomed by families and physicians.”

The FDA approved Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical-grade oral solution that is 98% CBD, in June of 2018. In September of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration classified it as a Schedule V controlled substance. Patients’ use of nonpharmaceutical grade CBD products, including those combined with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “raises concerns about the use of products with THC on the developing brain,” the review authors said.
 

Randomized trials

Three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome found that CBD, compared with placebo, results in greater median seizure reductions (38%-41% vs. 13%-19%) and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients with 50% reductions in convulsive or drop seizures; 39%-46% vs. 14%-27%).

Common adverse effects include somnolence, diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, lethargy, pyrexia, and vomiting. Hepatic transaminases became elevated in some patients, and this result occurred more often in patients taking valproate.

No phase 2 or phase 3 trials have assessed the efficacy of CBD without coadministration of other AEDs, and CBD’s efficacy may relate to its impact on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered AEDs. “The most important clinical interaction is between CBD and clobazam, as [the dose of] clobazam often needs to be lowered because of excessive sedation,” wrote Ms. Ali and her colleagues. CBD inhibits CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 – enzymes that are involved in clobazam metabolism – which results in high plasma concentrations of clobazam’s active metabolite, norclobazam. Plasma levels of topiramate, rufinamide, zonisamide, and eslicarbazepine also may increase when these drugs are taken with CBD.
 

Challenges and opportunities

Of the hundreds of compounds in the marijuana plant, CBD “has the most evidence of antiepileptic efficacy and does not have the psychoactive effects” of THC, the authors said. Little evidence supports the combination of THC and CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In addition, research indicates that THC can have a proconvulsive effect in animal models and harm the development of the human brain.

Investigators are evaluating alternative routes of CBD delivery to avoid first-pass metabolism, such as oromucosal sprays, transdermal gels, eye drops, intranasal sprays, and rectal suppositories. “Alternative methods of administration ... deserve consideration, particularly for the developmental and epileptic encephalopathies population, as administration of oral medication can be challenging,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali S et al. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14087.

The efficacy and side effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in severe pediatric epilepsies are similar to those of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), according to a review published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. “Careful down-titration of benzodiazepines is essential to minimize sedation with adjunctive CBD,” the authors said.

Although CBD’s antiepileptic mechanisms “are not fully elucidated, it is clear that administration of CBD as adjunct therapy decreases seizure frequency in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome,” wrote Shayma Ali, a doctoral student in the department of pediatrics and child health at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, and her colleagues. “Contrary to public expectation of miraculous results, CBD has a similar antiepileptic and side effect profile to other AEDs. Nevertheless, as individual children with these developmental and epileptic encephalopathies are often refractory to available AEDs, the addition of another potentially effective therapeutic medicine will be warmly welcomed by families and physicians.”

The FDA approved Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical-grade oral solution that is 98% CBD, in June of 2018. In September of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration classified it as a Schedule V controlled substance. Patients’ use of nonpharmaceutical grade CBD products, including those combined with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “raises concerns about the use of products with THC on the developing brain,” the review authors said.
 

Randomized trials

Three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials in patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome found that CBD, compared with placebo, results in greater median seizure reductions (38%-41% vs. 13%-19%) and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients with 50% reductions in convulsive or drop seizures; 39%-46% vs. 14%-27%).

Common adverse effects include somnolence, diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, lethargy, pyrexia, and vomiting. Hepatic transaminases became elevated in some patients, and this result occurred more often in patients taking valproate.

No phase 2 or phase 3 trials have assessed the efficacy of CBD without coadministration of other AEDs, and CBD’s efficacy may relate to its impact on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered AEDs. “The most important clinical interaction is between CBD and clobazam, as [the dose of] clobazam often needs to be lowered because of excessive sedation,” wrote Ms. Ali and her colleagues. CBD inhibits CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 – enzymes that are involved in clobazam metabolism – which results in high plasma concentrations of clobazam’s active metabolite, norclobazam. Plasma levels of topiramate, rufinamide, zonisamide, and eslicarbazepine also may increase when these drugs are taken with CBD.
 

Challenges and opportunities

Of the hundreds of compounds in the marijuana plant, CBD “has the most evidence of antiepileptic efficacy and does not have the psychoactive effects” of THC, the authors said. Little evidence supports the combination of THC and CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In addition, research indicates that THC can have a proconvulsive effect in animal models and harm the development of the human brain.

Investigators are evaluating alternative routes of CBD delivery to avoid first-pass metabolism, such as oromucosal sprays, transdermal gels, eye drops, intranasal sprays, and rectal suppositories. “Alternative methods of administration ... deserve consideration, particularly for the developmental and epileptic encephalopathies population, as administration of oral medication can be challenging,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali S et al. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14087.

SAN DIEGO – There was a mountain of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology on the use of novel agents – both as frontline therapy and in combination – for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

In a video interview at the meeting, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, summed up the key studies and what they mean in practice. They also looked ahead at what data are still missing that could aid in making important treatment decisions.

Dr. Hill highlighted the late-breaking abstract on the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial comparing ibrutinib-rituximab to a chemotherapy regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in previously untreated patients under age 70 years (Abstract LBA-4). Not only was there a progression-free survival benefit with the use of the ibrutinib regimen, but there was an overall survival benefit as well, he noted.

Dr. Mato pointed to notable results from the Alliance A041202 trial of older patients with previously untreated disease that compared ibrutinib alone or in combination with rituximab, with bendamustine plus rituximab (Abstract #6). The ibrutinib-containing regimens resulted in superior progression-free survival.

The two trials taken together show a movement away from chemotherapy in the frontline setting and toward targeted agents for CLL, Dr. Mato said. “What that agent or combination of agents will be, remains to be seen,” he said. “We have now a real message about the fact that we’re ending, potentially, the era of chemotherapy for patients with CLL, which is a very welcome change.”

Dr. Mato and Dr. Hill will be discussing these trials and more CLL data during a Twitter chat on Jan. 31, 2019, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. EST. Join in the conversation by using and following #MDedgeChats.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – There was a mountain of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology on the use of novel agents – both as frontline therapy and in combination – for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

In a video interview at the meeting, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, summed up the key studies and what they mean in practice. They also looked ahead at what data are still missing that could aid in making important treatment decisions.

Dr. Hill highlighted the late-breaking abstract on the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial comparing ibrutinib-rituximab to a chemotherapy regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in previously untreated patients under age 70 years (Abstract LBA-4). Not only was there a progression-free survival benefit with the use of the ibrutinib regimen, but there was an overall survival benefit as well, he noted.

Dr. Mato pointed to notable results from the Alliance A041202 trial of older patients with previously untreated disease that compared ibrutinib alone or in combination with rituximab, with bendamustine plus rituximab (Abstract #6). The ibrutinib-containing regimens resulted in superior progression-free survival.

The two trials taken together show a movement away from chemotherapy in the frontline setting and toward targeted agents for CLL, Dr. Mato said. “What that agent or combination of agents will be, remains to be seen,” he said. “We have now a real message about the fact that we’re ending, potentially, the era of chemotherapy for patients with CLL, which is a very welcome change.”

Dr. Mato and Dr. Hill will be discussing these trials and more CLL data during a Twitter chat on Jan. 31, 2019, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. EST. Join in the conversation by using and following #MDedgeChats.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – There was a mountain of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology on the use of novel agents – both as frontline therapy and in combination – for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

In a video interview at the meeting, Brian T. Hill, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic and Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, summed up the key studies and what they mean in practice. They also looked ahead at what data are still missing that could aid in making important treatment decisions.

Dr. Hill highlighted the late-breaking abstract on the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1912 trial comparing ibrutinib-rituximab to a chemotherapy regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in previously untreated patients under age 70 years (Abstract LBA-4). Not only was there a progression-free survival benefit with the use of the ibrutinib regimen, but there was an overall survival benefit as well, he noted.

Dr. Mato pointed to notable results from the Alliance A041202 trial of older patients with previously untreated disease that compared ibrutinib alone or in combination with rituximab, with bendamustine plus rituximab (Abstract #6). The ibrutinib-containing regimens resulted in superior progression-free survival.

The two trials taken together show a movement away from chemotherapy in the frontline setting and toward targeted agents for CLL, Dr. Mato said. “What that agent or combination of agents will be, remains to be seen,” he said. “We have now a real message about the fact that we’re ending, potentially, the era of chemotherapy for patients with CLL, which is a very welcome change.”

Dr. Mato and Dr. Hill will be discussing these trials and more CLL data during a Twitter chat on Jan. 31, 2019, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. EST. Join in the conversation by using and following #MDedgeChats.

[email protected]

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and food allergies had more relapses and gadolinium-enhancing lesions than patients with MS but no food allergies, according to a recent analysis of a longitudinal study.

Patients with food allergies had a 1.3-times higher rate for cumulative number of attacks and a 2.5-times higher likelihood of enhancing lesions on brain MRI in the analysis of patients enrolled in the Comprehensive Longitudinal Investigation of Multiple Sclerosis at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (CLIMB).

By contrast, there were no significant differences in relapse or lesion rates for patients with environmental or drug allergies when compared with those without allergies, reported Tanuja Chitnis, MD, of Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coinvestigators.

“Our findings suggest that MS patients with allergies have more active disease than those without allergies, and that this effect is driven by food allergies,” Dr. Tanuja and her coauthors wrote in their report, which appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.

Previous investigations have looked at whether allergy history increases risk of developing MS, with conflicting results, they added, noting a meta-analysis of 10 observational studies suggesting no such link.

By contrast, whether allergies lead to more or less intense MS activity has not been addressed, according to investigators, who said this is the first study tying allergy history to MS disease course using clinical and MRI variables.

Their study was based on a subset of 1,349 patients with a diagnosis of MS who were enrolled in CLIMB and completed a self-administered questionnaire on food, environmental, and drug allergies. Of those patients, 922 reported allergies, while 427 reported no known allergies.

Patients with food allergies had a significantly increased rate of cumulative number of attacks, compared with those with no allergies, according to investigators, even after adjusting the analysis for gender, age at symptom onset, disease category, and time on treatment (relapse rate ratio, 1.274; 95% confidence interval, 1.023-1.587; P = .0305).

Food allergy patients were more than twice as likely as no-allergy patients were to have gadolinium-enhancing lesions on brain MRI after adjusting for other covariates (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.25-5.11; P = .0096), they added.

Patients with environmental and drug allergies also appeared to have more relapses, compared with patients with no allergies, in univariate analysis, but the differences were not significant in the adjusted analysis, investigators said. Likewise, there were trends toward a link between number of lesions and presence of environmental or drug allergies that did not hold up on multivariate analysis.

It is unknown what underlying biological mechanisms might potentially link food allergies to MS disease severity; however, findings of experimental studies support the hypothesis that gut microbiota might affect the risk and course of MS, Dr. Chitnis and her coauthors wrote in their report.

The CLIMB study was supported by Merck Serono and the National MS Society Nancy Davis Center Without Walls. Dr. Chitnis reported consulting fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer, and Celgene outside the submitted work. Coauthors provided additional disclosures related to Merck Serono, Genentech, Verily Life Sciences, EMD Serono, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi, and Novartis, among others.

SOURCE: Fakih R et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319301.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and food allergies had more relapses and gadolinium-enhancing lesions than patients with MS but no food allergies, according to a recent analysis of a longitudinal study.

Patients with food allergies had a 1.3-times higher rate for cumulative number of attacks and a 2.5-times higher likelihood of enhancing lesions on brain MRI in the analysis of patients enrolled in the Comprehensive Longitudinal Investigation of Multiple Sclerosis at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (CLIMB).

By contrast, there were no significant differences in relapse or lesion rates for patients with environmental or drug allergies when compared with those without allergies, reported Tanuja Chitnis, MD, of Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coinvestigators.

“Our findings suggest that MS patients with allergies have more active disease than those without allergies, and that this effect is driven by food allergies,” Dr. Tanuja and her coauthors wrote in their report, which appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.

Previous investigations have looked at whether allergy history increases risk of developing MS, with conflicting results, they added, noting a meta-analysis of 10 observational studies suggesting no such link.

By contrast, whether allergies lead to more or less intense MS activity has not been addressed, according to investigators, who said this is the first study tying allergy history to MS disease course using clinical and MRI variables.

Their study was based on a subset of 1,349 patients with a diagnosis of MS who were enrolled in CLIMB and completed a self-administered questionnaire on food, environmental, and drug allergies. Of those patients, 922 reported allergies, while 427 reported no known allergies.

Patients with food allergies had a significantly increased rate of cumulative number of attacks, compared with those with no allergies, according to investigators, even after adjusting the analysis for gender, age at symptom onset, disease category, and time on treatment (relapse rate ratio, 1.274; 95% confidence interval, 1.023-1.587; P = .0305).

Food allergy patients were more than twice as likely as no-allergy patients were to have gadolinium-enhancing lesions on brain MRI after adjusting for other covariates (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.25-5.11; P = .0096), they added.

Patients with environmental and drug allergies also appeared to have more relapses, compared with patients with no allergies, in univariate analysis, but the differences were not significant in the adjusted analysis, investigators said. Likewise, there were trends toward a link between number of lesions and presence of environmental or drug allergies that did not hold up on multivariate analysis.

It is unknown what underlying biological mechanisms might potentially link food allergies to MS disease severity; however, findings of experimental studies support the hypothesis that gut microbiota might affect the risk and course of MS, Dr. Chitnis and her coauthors wrote in their report.

The CLIMB study was supported by Merck Serono and the National MS Society Nancy Davis Center Without Walls. Dr. Chitnis reported consulting fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer, and Celgene outside the submitted work. Coauthors provided additional disclosures related to Merck Serono, Genentech, Verily Life Sciences, EMD Serono, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi, and Novartis, among others.

SOURCE: Fakih R et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319301.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and food allergies had more relapses and gadolinium-enhancing lesions than patients with MS but no food allergies, according to a recent analysis of a longitudinal study.

Patients with food allergies had a 1.3-times higher rate for cumulative number of attacks and a 2.5-times higher likelihood of enhancing lesions on brain MRI in the analysis of patients enrolled in the Comprehensive Longitudinal Investigation of Multiple Sclerosis at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (CLIMB).

By contrast, there were no significant differences in relapse or lesion rates for patients with environmental or drug allergies when compared with those without allergies, reported Tanuja Chitnis, MD, of Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her coinvestigators.

“Our findings suggest that MS patients with allergies have more active disease than those without allergies, and that this effect is driven by food allergies,” Dr. Tanuja and her coauthors wrote in their report, which appeared in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.

Previous investigations have looked at whether allergy history increases risk of developing MS, with conflicting results, they added, noting a meta-analysis of 10 observational studies suggesting no such link.

By contrast, whether allergies lead to more or less intense MS activity has not been addressed, according to investigators, who said this is the first study tying allergy history to MS disease course using clinical and MRI variables.

Their study was based on a subset of 1,349 patients with a diagnosis of MS who were enrolled in CLIMB and completed a self-administered questionnaire on food, environmental, and drug allergies. Of those patients, 922 reported allergies, while 427 reported no known allergies.

Patients with food allergies had a significantly increased rate of cumulative number of attacks, compared with those with no allergies, according to investigators, even after adjusting the analysis for gender, age at symptom onset, disease category, and time on treatment (relapse rate ratio, 1.274; 95% confidence interval, 1.023-1.587; P = .0305).

Food allergy patients were more than twice as likely as no-allergy patients were to have gadolinium-enhancing lesions on brain MRI after adjusting for other covariates (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.25-5.11; P = .0096), they added.

Patients with environmental and drug allergies also appeared to have more relapses, compared with patients with no allergies, in univariate analysis, but the differences were not significant in the adjusted analysis, investigators said. Likewise, there were trends toward a link between number of lesions and presence of environmental or drug allergies that did not hold up on multivariate analysis.

It is unknown what underlying biological mechanisms might potentially link food allergies to MS disease severity; however, findings of experimental studies support the hypothesis that gut microbiota might affect the risk and course of MS, Dr. Chitnis and her coauthors wrote in their report.

The CLIMB study was supported by Merck Serono and the National MS Society Nancy Davis Center Without Walls. Dr. Chitnis reported consulting fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer, and Celgene outside the submitted work. Coauthors provided additional disclosures related to Merck Serono, Genentech, Verily Life Sciences, EMD Serono, Biogen, Teva, Sanofi, and Novartis, among others.

SOURCE: Fakih R et al. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319301.