Federal Practitioner

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

Breast cancer now tops the list of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, surpassing lung cancer for the first time, according to the latest global cancer burden estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Breast cancer among women accounted for 11.7% of the estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases in 2020 ― and about 25% of all cancer cases among women. Lung cancer accounted for 11.4% of new cases, reports the IARC, part of the World Health Organization.

However, lung cancer remains the leading overall cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 18.0% of 10 million cancer deaths. Breast cancer ranks fifth as a cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 1 of every 6 cancer deaths in women and 685,000 deaths overall (6.9%) in 2020, but it ranks first in incidence in 159 countries and first in mortality in 110 countries, the data show.

The increase in breast cancer cases is likely attributable to the effects of “marked changes in lifestyle, sociocultural contexts, and built environments” in many countries, says the IACR. These include delayed childbearing, having fewer children, increased rates of overweight and obesity, and decreasing levels of physical activity, the IACR explains in a press release.

These new data underscore the importance of focusing on cancer prevention, IARC Director Elisabete Weiderpass, MD, states in the press release.

“Effective interventions for prevention and early detection are available and must be integrated into cancer planning to control the predicted upsurge of this devastating disease,” she said.

Weiderpass also notes that the “overwhelming need for evidence-based and resource-stratified guidelines that support the phased implementation of breast cancer early detection and treatment into real-world practice.”

To that end, the WHO and the IARC will launch a global breast cancer initiative in 2021 to improve population-level outcomes through a focus on more timely diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, she adds.

The most common cancer diagnoses worldwide after breast cancer and lung cancer are colorectal cancer (10.0%), prostate cancer (7.3%), and stomach cancer (5.6%).

The leading causes of cancer deaths after lung cancer are colorectal cancer (9.4%), liver cancer (8.3%), stomach cancer (7.7%), and breast cancer among women.
 

One in five people will develop cancer

The IACR estimates that 1 in 5 people will develop cancer in their lifetime and that 1 in 8 men and 1 in 11 women will die from it.

Among women, breast cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Colorectal cancer and lung cancer are the second and third most common cancer types and the third and second most common causes of cancer death, respectively.

Among men, lung cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Prostate cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common cancer types, and liver cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common causes of cancer death.

“Worldwide, an estimated 28.4 million new cancer cases are projected to occur in 2040, a 47% increase from the estimated 19.3 million cases in 2020,” the IARC notes.

The agency derives its estimates from the GLOBOCAN 2020 database, which tracks 185 countries and 36 types of cancer and is accessible through the IARC Global Cancer Observatory.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer now tops the list of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, surpassing lung cancer for the first time, according to the latest global cancer burden estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Breast cancer among women accounted for 11.7% of the estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases in 2020 ― and about 25% of all cancer cases among women. Lung cancer accounted for 11.4% of new cases, reports the IARC, part of the World Health Organization.

However, lung cancer remains the leading overall cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 18.0% of 10 million cancer deaths. Breast cancer ranks fifth as a cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 1 of every 6 cancer deaths in women and 685,000 deaths overall (6.9%) in 2020, but it ranks first in incidence in 159 countries and first in mortality in 110 countries, the data show.

The increase in breast cancer cases is likely attributable to the effects of “marked changes in lifestyle, sociocultural contexts, and built environments” in many countries, says the IACR. These include delayed childbearing, having fewer children, increased rates of overweight and obesity, and decreasing levels of physical activity, the IACR explains in a press release.

These new data underscore the importance of focusing on cancer prevention, IARC Director Elisabete Weiderpass, MD, states in the press release.

“Effective interventions for prevention and early detection are available and must be integrated into cancer planning to control the predicted upsurge of this devastating disease,” she said.

Weiderpass also notes that the “overwhelming need for evidence-based and resource-stratified guidelines that support the phased implementation of breast cancer early detection and treatment into real-world practice.”

To that end, the WHO and the IARC will launch a global breast cancer initiative in 2021 to improve population-level outcomes through a focus on more timely diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, she adds.

The most common cancer diagnoses worldwide after breast cancer and lung cancer are colorectal cancer (10.0%), prostate cancer (7.3%), and stomach cancer (5.6%).

The leading causes of cancer deaths after lung cancer are colorectal cancer (9.4%), liver cancer (8.3%), stomach cancer (7.7%), and breast cancer among women.
 

One in five people will develop cancer

The IACR estimates that 1 in 5 people will develop cancer in their lifetime and that 1 in 8 men and 1 in 11 women will die from it.

Among women, breast cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Colorectal cancer and lung cancer are the second and third most common cancer types and the third and second most common causes of cancer death, respectively.

Among men, lung cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Prostate cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common cancer types, and liver cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common causes of cancer death.

“Worldwide, an estimated 28.4 million new cancer cases are projected to occur in 2040, a 47% increase from the estimated 19.3 million cases in 2020,” the IARC notes.

The agency derives its estimates from the GLOBOCAN 2020 database, which tracks 185 countries and 36 types of cancer and is accessible through the IARC Global Cancer Observatory.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer now tops the list of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, surpassing lung cancer for the first time, according to the latest global cancer burden estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Breast cancer among women accounted for 11.7% of the estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases in 2020 ― and about 25% of all cancer cases among women. Lung cancer accounted for 11.4% of new cases, reports the IARC, part of the World Health Organization.

However, lung cancer remains the leading overall cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 18.0% of 10 million cancer deaths. Breast cancer ranks fifth as a cause of cancer mortality, accounting for 1 of every 6 cancer deaths in women and 685,000 deaths overall (6.9%) in 2020, but it ranks first in incidence in 159 countries and first in mortality in 110 countries, the data show.

The increase in breast cancer cases is likely attributable to the effects of “marked changes in lifestyle, sociocultural contexts, and built environments” in many countries, says the IACR. These include delayed childbearing, having fewer children, increased rates of overweight and obesity, and decreasing levels of physical activity, the IACR explains in a press release.

These new data underscore the importance of focusing on cancer prevention, IARC Director Elisabete Weiderpass, MD, states in the press release.

“Effective interventions for prevention and early detection are available and must be integrated into cancer planning to control the predicted upsurge of this devastating disease,” she said.

Weiderpass also notes that the “overwhelming need for evidence-based and resource-stratified guidelines that support the phased implementation of breast cancer early detection and treatment into real-world practice.”

To that end, the WHO and the IARC will launch a global breast cancer initiative in 2021 to improve population-level outcomes through a focus on more timely diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, she adds.

The most common cancer diagnoses worldwide after breast cancer and lung cancer are colorectal cancer (10.0%), prostate cancer (7.3%), and stomach cancer (5.6%).

The leading causes of cancer deaths after lung cancer are colorectal cancer (9.4%), liver cancer (8.3%), stomach cancer (7.7%), and breast cancer among women.
 

One in five people will develop cancer

The IACR estimates that 1 in 5 people will develop cancer in their lifetime and that 1 in 8 men and 1 in 11 women will die from it.

Among women, breast cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Colorectal cancer and lung cancer are the second and third most common cancer types and the third and second most common causes of cancer death, respectively.

Among men, lung cancer is the most common cancer type and the most common cause of cancer death. Prostate cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common cancer types, and liver cancer and colorectal cancer are the second and third most common causes of cancer death.

“Worldwide, an estimated 28.4 million new cancer cases are projected to occur in 2040, a 47% increase from the estimated 19.3 million cases in 2020,” the IARC notes.

The agency derives its estimates from the GLOBOCAN 2020 database, which tracks 185 countries and 36 types of cancer and is accessible through the IARC Global Cancer Observatory.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

The investigational drug asciminib (being developed by Novartis) may become the new kid on the block for the treatment of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CMP-CP) for patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to at least two prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

New results from the ASCEMBL study (NCT03106779) show that patients who received asciminib, which works differently from currently approved therapies for CML-CP, achieved better responses, compared with bosutinib (Bosulif) as third-line therapy.

“The ASCEMBL study opens a new chapter for CML, proving comparatively superior efficacy and excellent safety for a new class of ABL inhibitors,” coinvestigator Michael J. Mauro, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The trial was presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Asciminib is a first-of-a-kind STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor that works differently from currently approved TKIs, which are adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-–competitive ABL inhibitors.

Five TKIs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat CML: imatinib (Gleevec; generics), nilotinib (Tasigna), dasatinib (Sprycel), bosutinib, and ponatinib (Iclusig).

All of them inhibit BCR/ABL tyrosine kinase by binding to the ATP-binding pocket.

Most patients with TKI resistant disease develop mutations in the ATP-binding pocket, explained Michael Jay Styler, MD, associate professor at Fox Chase–Temple University Hospital bone marrow transplant program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

By inactivating the protein through binding outside the ATP site, asciminib is a novel BCR-ABL inhibitor and may be a superior alternative to further traditional TKIs. “This agent promises to be an important addition to our treatment armamentarium for CML,” Dr. Styler said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “Although we have many excellent therapies for CML, having a new medication that targets BCR-ABL in a novel way is still welcome to help us better care for CML patients,” Gabriela S. Hobbs, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Hobbs is the clinical director of leukemia services at Boston’s Mass General Cancer Center.

Patients in this study had previously been receiving at least two different types of TKIs. “The responses looked very encouraging for this group of heavily pretreated patients. Although CML patients do very well on current therapies, those that don’t get a response with TKI remain a difficult clinical challenge,” Dr. Hobbs said.

“This is the first study comparing asciminib to a TKI directly (in this case bosutinib) and it showed safety as well as preliminary evidence of efficacy. I look forward to seeing additional studies with this promising drug and to have a new drug to add to the CML arsenal,” she added.
 

Identifying patients who will benefit from asciminib

Patients with CML are currently sequenced through more than one second-generation TKI, Dr. Mauro commented. “If imatinib and a second-generation TKI have not served a patient well, only bosutinib has been studied in the third line and comparatively in the ASCEMBL study.” Asciminib was shown to be superior and could offer a clear alternative to ponatinib, which would be the other choice and is typically given even later after sequencing all other available options.

Dr. Hobbs agreed. “This is a challenging group of patients to manage as their options are limited. Ponatinib is often the drug of choice in these scenarios, as well as bone marrow transplant.”

Asciminib is not approved yet, but both Dr. Mauro and Dr. Hobbs are hopeful it will be by early next year, and that initial approval is likely in patients with CML-CP after several (two or three) lines of therapy. They also agreed that it may be effective (alone or in combination) in treating patients with T315I-mutation CML, which is a particularly challenging disease.

Senior study author Andreas Hochhaus, MD, of the Klinik für Innere Medizin II in Jena, Germany, who presented the data at the meeting, noted new trials to test the efficacy of asciminib alone or in combination in earlier lines of therapy are ongoing and include the investigator-initiated FASCINATION study (first-line asciminib in combination) in Germany (NCT03906292).
 

ASCEMBL study details

ASCEMBL is a phase 3 study in which patients with CML who had received at least two previous TKIs were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) 40 mg twice daily or bosutinib (n = 76) 500 mg once daily. In a protocol amendment, patients with documented failure on bosutinib were allowed to switch to asciminib.

The main reason for discontinuing the last TKI therapy was lack of efficacy in approximately two-thirds of patients. More patients in the asciminib than the bosutinib group received two prior lines of therapy (52% vs. 40%); the others had received three or more prior lines of therapy.

Median follow-up for the data cutoff was 14.9 months.

Dr. Hochhaus reported that treatment discontinuation was lower in patients receiving asciminib than bosutinib (38% vs. 70%) and was mostly due to lack of efficacy (21% vs. 32%) or adverse events (5% vs. 21%).

The study met its primary endpoint: major molecular response (MMR) was approximately twice as high with asciminib than bosutinib at 24 weeks (25.5% vs. 13.2%; P = .029). Treatment effect for MMR was 12.2%. Median duration of exposure to asciminib was 43.4 weeks for asciminib and 29.2 weeks for bosutinib.

“Consistent treatment effect was seen across all subgroups of patients, and MMR rates were consistently high for patients on asciminib across all prior lines of therapy,” Dr. Hochhaus reported.

The probability of achieving MMR at 24 weeks was higher for patients receiving asciminib (25% vs. 11.9%) and started at week 12, he noted. Complete cytogenetic response was also higher for patients receiving asciminib (40.8% vs. 24.2%).

The occurrence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was lower with asciminib than bosutinib (51% vs. 61%). Thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were more common with asciminib and gastrointestinal events were more common with bosutinib. Arterial occlusion events were reported in five patients receiving asciminib and one patient receiving bosutinib. Most of these patients had prior exposure to imatinib, nilotinib, and/or dasatinib.

Dr. Mauro, a coinvestigator of the phase 3 study, also treated patients with the drug in the phase 1 study. “I feel asciminib has proven to be very well tolerated, with rare to absent cases of intolerance,” he said. Cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary adverse events are exceedingly rare as well.

Longer follow-up of the ASCEMBL study and continued follow-up of the myriad of groups from the phase 1 trial (T315I-positive patients treated with higher-dose asciminib, combination therapy with imatinib/nilotinib/dasatinib plus asciminib, and others) will be essential to settle any questions regarding selective adverse events of interest such as vascular occlusion, Dr. Mauro noted.

Dr. Hochhaus has reported receiving research funding from Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hobbs has reported serving on advisory boards for Novartis. Dr. Mauro has reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma/SPARC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational drug asciminib (being developed by Novartis) may become the new kid on the block for the treatment of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CMP-CP) for patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to at least two prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

New results from the ASCEMBL study (NCT03106779) show that patients who received asciminib, which works differently from currently approved therapies for CML-CP, achieved better responses, compared with bosutinib (Bosulif) as third-line therapy.

“The ASCEMBL study opens a new chapter for CML, proving comparatively superior efficacy and excellent safety for a new class of ABL inhibitors,” coinvestigator Michael J. Mauro, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The trial was presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Asciminib is a first-of-a-kind STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor that works differently from currently approved TKIs, which are adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-–competitive ABL inhibitors.

Five TKIs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat CML: imatinib (Gleevec; generics), nilotinib (Tasigna), dasatinib (Sprycel), bosutinib, and ponatinib (Iclusig).

All of them inhibit BCR/ABL tyrosine kinase by binding to the ATP-binding pocket.

Most patients with TKI resistant disease develop mutations in the ATP-binding pocket, explained Michael Jay Styler, MD, associate professor at Fox Chase–Temple University Hospital bone marrow transplant program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

By inactivating the protein through binding outside the ATP site, asciminib is a novel BCR-ABL inhibitor and may be a superior alternative to further traditional TKIs. “This agent promises to be an important addition to our treatment armamentarium for CML,” Dr. Styler said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “Although we have many excellent therapies for CML, having a new medication that targets BCR-ABL in a novel way is still welcome to help us better care for CML patients,” Gabriela S. Hobbs, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Hobbs is the clinical director of leukemia services at Boston’s Mass General Cancer Center.

Patients in this study had previously been receiving at least two different types of TKIs. “The responses looked very encouraging for this group of heavily pretreated patients. Although CML patients do very well on current therapies, those that don’t get a response with TKI remain a difficult clinical challenge,” Dr. Hobbs said.

“This is the first study comparing asciminib to a TKI directly (in this case bosutinib) and it showed safety as well as preliminary evidence of efficacy. I look forward to seeing additional studies with this promising drug and to have a new drug to add to the CML arsenal,” she added.
 

Identifying patients who will benefit from asciminib

Patients with CML are currently sequenced through more than one second-generation TKI, Dr. Mauro commented. “If imatinib and a second-generation TKI have not served a patient well, only bosutinib has been studied in the third line and comparatively in the ASCEMBL study.” Asciminib was shown to be superior and could offer a clear alternative to ponatinib, which would be the other choice and is typically given even later after sequencing all other available options.

Dr. Hobbs agreed. “This is a challenging group of patients to manage as their options are limited. Ponatinib is often the drug of choice in these scenarios, as well as bone marrow transplant.”

Asciminib is not approved yet, but both Dr. Mauro and Dr. Hobbs are hopeful it will be by early next year, and that initial approval is likely in patients with CML-CP after several (two or three) lines of therapy. They also agreed that it may be effective (alone or in combination) in treating patients with T315I-mutation CML, which is a particularly challenging disease.

Senior study author Andreas Hochhaus, MD, of the Klinik für Innere Medizin II in Jena, Germany, who presented the data at the meeting, noted new trials to test the efficacy of asciminib alone or in combination in earlier lines of therapy are ongoing and include the investigator-initiated FASCINATION study (first-line asciminib in combination) in Germany (NCT03906292).
 

ASCEMBL study details

ASCEMBL is a phase 3 study in which patients with CML who had received at least two previous TKIs were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) 40 mg twice daily or bosutinib (n = 76) 500 mg once daily. In a protocol amendment, patients with documented failure on bosutinib were allowed to switch to asciminib.

The main reason for discontinuing the last TKI therapy was lack of efficacy in approximately two-thirds of patients. More patients in the asciminib than the bosutinib group received two prior lines of therapy (52% vs. 40%); the others had received three or more prior lines of therapy.

Median follow-up for the data cutoff was 14.9 months.

Dr. Hochhaus reported that treatment discontinuation was lower in patients receiving asciminib than bosutinib (38% vs. 70%) and was mostly due to lack of efficacy (21% vs. 32%) or adverse events (5% vs. 21%).

The study met its primary endpoint: major molecular response (MMR) was approximately twice as high with asciminib than bosutinib at 24 weeks (25.5% vs. 13.2%; P = .029). Treatment effect for MMR was 12.2%. Median duration of exposure to asciminib was 43.4 weeks for asciminib and 29.2 weeks for bosutinib.

“Consistent treatment effect was seen across all subgroups of patients, and MMR rates were consistently high for patients on asciminib across all prior lines of therapy,” Dr. Hochhaus reported.

The probability of achieving MMR at 24 weeks was higher for patients receiving asciminib (25% vs. 11.9%) and started at week 12, he noted. Complete cytogenetic response was also higher for patients receiving asciminib (40.8% vs. 24.2%).

The occurrence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was lower with asciminib than bosutinib (51% vs. 61%). Thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were more common with asciminib and gastrointestinal events were more common with bosutinib. Arterial occlusion events were reported in five patients receiving asciminib and one patient receiving bosutinib. Most of these patients had prior exposure to imatinib, nilotinib, and/or dasatinib.

Dr. Mauro, a coinvestigator of the phase 3 study, also treated patients with the drug in the phase 1 study. “I feel asciminib has proven to be very well tolerated, with rare to absent cases of intolerance,” he said. Cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary adverse events are exceedingly rare as well.

Longer follow-up of the ASCEMBL study and continued follow-up of the myriad of groups from the phase 1 trial (T315I-positive patients treated with higher-dose asciminib, combination therapy with imatinib/nilotinib/dasatinib plus asciminib, and others) will be essential to settle any questions regarding selective adverse events of interest such as vascular occlusion, Dr. Mauro noted.

Dr. Hochhaus has reported receiving research funding from Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hobbs has reported serving on advisory boards for Novartis. Dr. Mauro has reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma/SPARC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational drug asciminib (being developed by Novartis) may become the new kid on the block for the treatment of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CMP-CP) for patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to at least two prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

New results from the ASCEMBL study (NCT03106779) show that patients who received asciminib, which works differently from currently approved therapies for CML-CP, achieved better responses, compared with bosutinib (Bosulif) as third-line therapy.

“The ASCEMBL study opens a new chapter for CML, proving comparatively superior efficacy and excellent safety for a new class of ABL inhibitors,” coinvestigator Michael J. Mauro, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.

The trial was presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Asciminib is a first-of-a-kind STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor that works differently from currently approved TKIs, which are adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-–competitive ABL inhibitors.

Five TKIs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat CML: imatinib (Gleevec; generics), nilotinib (Tasigna), dasatinib (Sprycel), bosutinib, and ponatinib (Iclusig).

All of them inhibit BCR/ABL tyrosine kinase by binding to the ATP-binding pocket.

Most patients with TKI resistant disease develop mutations in the ATP-binding pocket, explained Michael Jay Styler, MD, associate professor at Fox Chase–Temple University Hospital bone marrow transplant program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

By inactivating the protein through binding outside the ATP site, asciminib is a novel BCR-ABL inhibitor and may be a superior alternative to further traditional TKIs. “This agent promises to be an important addition to our treatment armamentarium for CML,” Dr. Styler said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “Although we have many excellent therapies for CML, having a new medication that targets BCR-ABL in a novel way is still welcome to help us better care for CML patients,” Gabriela S. Hobbs, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Hobbs is the clinical director of leukemia services at Boston’s Mass General Cancer Center.

Patients in this study had previously been receiving at least two different types of TKIs. “The responses looked very encouraging for this group of heavily pretreated patients. Although CML patients do very well on current therapies, those that don’t get a response with TKI remain a difficult clinical challenge,” Dr. Hobbs said.

“This is the first study comparing asciminib to a TKI directly (in this case bosutinib) and it showed safety as well as preliminary evidence of efficacy. I look forward to seeing additional studies with this promising drug and to have a new drug to add to the CML arsenal,” she added.
 

Identifying patients who will benefit from asciminib

Patients with CML are currently sequenced through more than one second-generation TKI, Dr. Mauro commented. “If imatinib and a second-generation TKI have not served a patient well, only bosutinib has been studied in the third line and comparatively in the ASCEMBL study.” Asciminib was shown to be superior and could offer a clear alternative to ponatinib, which would be the other choice and is typically given even later after sequencing all other available options.

Dr. Hobbs agreed. “This is a challenging group of patients to manage as their options are limited. Ponatinib is often the drug of choice in these scenarios, as well as bone marrow transplant.”

Asciminib is not approved yet, but both Dr. Mauro and Dr. Hobbs are hopeful it will be by early next year, and that initial approval is likely in patients with CML-CP after several (two or three) lines of therapy. They also agreed that it may be effective (alone or in combination) in treating patients with T315I-mutation CML, which is a particularly challenging disease.

Senior study author Andreas Hochhaus, MD, of the Klinik für Innere Medizin II in Jena, Germany, who presented the data at the meeting, noted new trials to test the efficacy of asciminib alone or in combination in earlier lines of therapy are ongoing and include the investigator-initiated FASCINATION study (first-line asciminib in combination) in Germany (NCT03906292).
 

ASCEMBL study details

ASCEMBL is a phase 3 study in which patients with CML who had received at least two previous TKIs were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) 40 mg twice daily or bosutinib (n = 76) 500 mg once daily. In a protocol amendment, patients with documented failure on bosutinib were allowed to switch to asciminib.

The main reason for discontinuing the last TKI therapy was lack of efficacy in approximately two-thirds of patients. More patients in the asciminib than the bosutinib group received two prior lines of therapy (52% vs. 40%); the others had received three or more prior lines of therapy.

Median follow-up for the data cutoff was 14.9 months.

Dr. Hochhaus reported that treatment discontinuation was lower in patients receiving asciminib than bosutinib (38% vs. 70%) and was mostly due to lack of efficacy (21% vs. 32%) or adverse events (5% vs. 21%).

The study met its primary endpoint: major molecular response (MMR) was approximately twice as high with asciminib than bosutinib at 24 weeks (25.5% vs. 13.2%; P = .029). Treatment effect for MMR was 12.2%. Median duration of exposure to asciminib was 43.4 weeks for asciminib and 29.2 weeks for bosutinib.

“Consistent treatment effect was seen across all subgroups of patients, and MMR rates were consistently high for patients on asciminib across all prior lines of therapy,” Dr. Hochhaus reported.

The probability of achieving MMR at 24 weeks was higher for patients receiving asciminib (25% vs. 11.9%) and started at week 12, he noted. Complete cytogenetic response was also higher for patients receiving asciminib (40.8% vs. 24.2%).

The occurrence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was lower with asciminib than bosutinib (51% vs. 61%). Thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were more common with asciminib and gastrointestinal events were more common with bosutinib. Arterial occlusion events were reported in five patients receiving asciminib and one patient receiving bosutinib. Most of these patients had prior exposure to imatinib, nilotinib, and/or dasatinib.

Dr. Mauro, a coinvestigator of the phase 3 study, also treated patients with the drug in the phase 1 study. “I feel asciminib has proven to be very well tolerated, with rare to absent cases of intolerance,” he said. Cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary adverse events are exceedingly rare as well.

Longer follow-up of the ASCEMBL study and continued follow-up of the myriad of groups from the phase 1 trial (T315I-positive patients treated with higher-dose asciminib, combination therapy with imatinib/nilotinib/dasatinib plus asciminib, and others) will be essential to settle any questions regarding selective adverse events of interest such as vascular occlusion, Dr. Mauro noted.

Dr. Hochhaus has reported receiving research funding from Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hobbs has reported serving on advisory boards for Novartis. Dr. Mauro has reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma/SPARC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly devised, validated prognostic tool – the Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – can consistently identify low-risk patients who might benefit from treatment de-escalation, and high-risk patients who are unlikely to be cured with current therapies and may require novel approaches, investigators said.

In a cohort of patients treated at international sites, patients with a low-risk score on the BL-IPI had a 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 96%, and 3-year overall survival rate (OS) of 99%. In contrast, the 3-year PFS rate for patients in the high-risk category was 63%, and the 3-year OS rate was 64%, reported Adam J Olszewski, MD, from the Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, both in Providence.

“The Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – or the ‘BLI-PI’ [‘blippy’] as it was inevitably called – is a novel prognostic index that is specific to Burkitt lymphoma. It has been validated with sufficient calibration and discrimination in external data sets to allow for simple stratification and comparison of risk distribution in geographically diverse cohorts,” he said in an oral abstract presented virtually during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Inconsistent criteria

There is a need for a Burkitt-specific index, he said, because of significant differences in age, stage at presentation, and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels between patients with Burkitt and those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and because historical definitions of “low-risk” Burkitt lymphoma have been inconsistent, with less than 10% of patients falling into this group, leaving the remainder in a undifferentiated “high-risk” category.

“Burkitt lymphoma is considered highly curable, but current therapy requires administration of dose-intense chemoimmunotherapy for which there are many chemotherapy backbone regimens developed across the world, and used mostly locally. These are often studied in phase 2 studies with limited sample sizes, which makes it difficult to compare populations across trials,” Dr. Olszewski said.

A validated prognostic index can help clinicians and researchers compare cohorts and can be used to help design future trials, he added.

To devise the BL-IPI, the investigators first selected a retrospective cohort of 570 adults with Burkitt lymphoma treated at 30 U.S. centers for whom data on outcomes were available.

They determined the best prognostic cutoffs for age, LDH, hemoglobin and albumin levels, and identified independent risk factors using stepwise selection in Cox regression and lasso regression analysis, a machine learning approach. The variables included age; sex; HIV-positivity status; loss of MYC rearrangement; performance status; stage; nodal involvement; marrow involvement; central nervous system involvement; and LDH, hemoglobin, and albumin levels.

For validation, they pooled data from European, Canadian, Australian, and U.K. studies to identify 457 patients for whom retrospective treatment and outcomes data were available.

The derivation and validation cohorts were similar in most respects, expect for a higher proportion of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or higher in the validation cohort (22% vs. 35%), and a higher proportion of patients with CNS involvement in the U.S.-based derivation cohort (19% vs. 10%, respectively).

Therapy also differed markedly between the U.S. and international cohorts, with about 30% each of U.S. patients receiving either the CODOX-M/IVAC (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine) regimen, DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) regimen, or hCVAD/MA (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine) regimen, and the remaining 10% receiving other, unspecified therapy.

In contrast, 65% of the patients in the international (validation) cohort received CODOX-M/IVAC, 10% and 9%, respectively, received DA-EPOCH-R and hCVAD/MA, and 16% receiving other regimens.

Rituximab was administered to 91% of U.S. and 95% of international patients.
 

Higher survival rates outside US

Both PFS and OS were higher in the international versus U.S. cohort. At a median follow-up of 45 months, the PFS rate in the United States was 65%, and the OS rate was 70%.

In the international cohort, after a median follow-up of 52 months, the PFS rate was 75%, and the OS rate was 76%, the investigators found.

Reasons for the differences may be because of differences in treatment regimens, socioeconomic and racial disparities in the United States versus other countries, or to decentralized Burkitt lymphoma therapy in the United States, Dr. Olszewski said.

In univariate analysis, factors significantly predictive of worse PFS included age 40 years or older, ECOG performance status 2 or greater, stage 3 or 4 disease, marrow involvement, CNS involvement, LDH more than three times the upper limit of normal, and hemoglobin <11.5 g/dL (P < .001 for all preceding), as well as albumin <3.5 g/dL (P = .001).

“However, the multivariable analysis was more complicated, because many of these factors were overlapping, and most patients with high LDH also had advanced disease, and this group also encompassed patients who had bone marrow and CNS involvement,” he said.

Using the two types of regression analysis mentioned before, investigators identified ECOG performance status 2 or greater (P = .001), age 40 and older (P = .005), LDH greater than three times the upper limit of normal (P < .001) and CNS involvement (P = .002) as significant predictors for worse outcomes in multivariable analysis, and were included in the final model.

“We initially had five groups according to the number of these factors, but we observed that the survival curves for patients with two, three, or four factors were overlapping, and not significantly different, so ultimately we had three risk groups. In the derivation (U.S.) cohort, patients in the low-risk group, with no risk factors, a 3-year PFS of 92%, compared with 72% for patients with one risk factor (intermediate risk), and 53% for patients with two to four risk factors (high risk).

Respective hazard ratios for worse PFS in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 1 (reference), 4.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-8.68), and 8.83 (95% CI, 4.32-18.03).

Respective HR for worse OS was 1, 7.06 (95% CI, 2.55-19.53), and 15.12 (95% CI, 5.58-40.99).

There were no significant differences in either PFS or OS when either LDH or stage was added into the model.

The BL-IPI was prognostic for PFS and OS in all subgroups, including HIV-positive or -negative patients, those with MYC rearrangements, stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4, or those treated with rituximab versus those who were not.

As noted before, 3-year PFS rates in the validation cohort for low, intermediate, high-risk groups were 96%, 82%, and 63% respectively, and 3-year OS rates were 99%, 85%, and 64%.
 

Why the CNS discrepancy?

In the question and answer session following the presentation, comoderator Christopher J. Melani, MD, from the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., said that “it was interesting to see the difference between CNS involvement in both the U.S. and the international cohort,” and asked whether Dr. Olszweski could elaborate on whether baseline CNS involvement was assessed by contrast-enhanced MRI of flow cytometry studies of cerebrospinal fluid.

“Could some of these differences between the U.S. and the international cohort be from the baseline assessment differing between the two?” he asked.

Dr. Olszewski replied that the retrospective nature of the data precluded capturing those data, but added that “I do suspect there may be some differences in the way that central nervous system is staged in different countries. In the United States the use of flow cytometry is more commonly employed, but we don’t know how it is used internationally. We do not know how often this is staged radiographically.”

Asked by others who viewed the presentation whether extranodal disease or peripheral blood involvement were prognostic in the final model, Dr. Olszewski replied that “one has to understand that, when one constructs a prognostic index, there is a balance between trying to input as much information as possible and to create something that is useful, clinically meaningful, and accurate.”

He said that, despite trying different models with different factors, “we couldn’t get the discrimination to be much better than the basic model that we ultimately created, so we favored using a more parsimonious model.”

No study funding source was reported. Dr. Olszewski reported research funding from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. Dr. Melani reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Olszewski AJ et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 705.

A newly devised, validated prognostic tool – the Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – can consistently identify low-risk patients who might benefit from treatment de-escalation, and high-risk patients who are unlikely to be cured with current therapies and may require novel approaches, investigators said.

In a cohort of patients treated at international sites, patients with a low-risk score on the BL-IPI had a 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 96%, and 3-year overall survival rate (OS) of 99%. In contrast, the 3-year PFS rate for patients in the high-risk category was 63%, and the 3-year OS rate was 64%, reported Adam J Olszewski, MD, from the Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, both in Providence.

“The Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – or the ‘BLI-PI’ [‘blippy’] as it was inevitably called – is a novel prognostic index that is specific to Burkitt lymphoma. It has been validated with sufficient calibration and discrimination in external data sets to allow for simple stratification and comparison of risk distribution in geographically diverse cohorts,” he said in an oral abstract presented virtually during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Inconsistent criteria

There is a need for a Burkitt-specific index, he said, because of significant differences in age, stage at presentation, and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels between patients with Burkitt and those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and because historical definitions of “low-risk” Burkitt lymphoma have been inconsistent, with less than 10% of patients falling into this group, leaving the remainder in a undifferentiated “high-risk” category.

“Burkitt lymphoma is considered highly curable, but current therapy requires administration of dose-intense chemoimmunotherapy for which there are many chemotherapy backbone regimens developed across the world, and used mostly locally. These are often studied in phase 2 studies with limited sample sizes, which makes it difficult to compare populations across trials,” Dr. Olszewski said.

A validated prognostic index can help clinicians and researchers compare cohorts and can be used to help design future trials, he added.

To devise the BL-IPI, the investigators first selected a retrospective cohort of 570 adults with Burkitt lymphoma treated at 30 U.S. centers for whom data on outcomes were available.

They determined the best prognostic cutoffs for age, LDH, hemoglobin and albumin levels, and identified independent risk factors using stepwise selection in Cox regression and lasso regression analysis, a machine learning approach. The variables included age; sex; HIV-positivity status; loss of MYC rearrangement; performance status; stage; nodal involvement; marrow involvement; central nervous system involvement; and LDH, hemoglobin, and albumin levels.

For validation, they pooled data from European, Canadian, Australian, and U.K. studies to identify 457 patients for whom retrospective treatment and outcomes data were available.

The derivation and validation cohorts were similar in most respects, expect for a higher proportion of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or higher in the validation cohort (22% vs. 35%), and a higher proportion of patients with CNS involvement in the U.S.-based derivation cohort (19% vs. 10%, respectively).

Therapy also differed markedly between the U.S. and international cohorts, with about 30% each of U.S. patients receiving either the CODOX-M/IVAC (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine) regimen, DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) regimen, or hCVAD/MA (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine) regimen, and the remaining 10% receiving other, unspecified therapy.

In contrast, 65% of the patients in the international (validation) cohort received CODOX-M/IVAC, 10% and 9%, respectively, received DA-EPOCH-R and hCVAD/MA, and 16% receiving other regimens.

Rituximab was administered to 91% of U.S. and 95% of international patients.
 

Higher survival rates outside US

Both PFS and OS were higher in the international versus U.S. cohort. At a median follow-up of 45 months, the PFS rate in the United States was 65%, and the OS rate was 70%.

In the international cohort, after a median follow-up of 52 months, the PFS rate was 75%, and the OS rate was 76%, the investigators found.

Reasons for the differences may be because of differences in treatment regimens, socioeconomic and racial disparities in the United States versus other countries, or to decentralized Burkitt lymphoma therapy in the United States, Dr. Olszewski said.

In univariate analysis, factors significantly predictive of worse PFS included age 40 years or older, ECOG performance status 2 or greater, stage 3 or 4 disease, marrow involvement, CNS involvement, LDH more than three times the upper limit of normal, and hemoglobin <11.5 g/dL (P < .001 for all preceding), as well as albumin <3.5 g/dL (P = .001).

“However, the multivariable analysis was more complicated, because many of these factors were overlapping, and most patients with high LDH also had advanced disease, and this group also encompassed patients who had bone marrow and CNS involvement,” he said.

Using the two types of regression analysis mentioned before, investigators identified ECOG performance status 2 or greater (P = .001), age 40 and older (P = .005), LDH greater than three times the upper limit of normal (P < .001) and CNS involvement (P = .002) as significant predictors for worse outcomes in multivariable analysis, and were included in the final model.

“We initially had five groups according to the number of these factors, but we observed that the survival curves for patients with two, three, or four factors were overlapping, and not significantly different, so ultimately we had three risk groups. In the derivation (U.S.) cohort, patients in the low-risk group, with no risk factors, a 3-year PFS of 92%, compared with 72% for patients with one risk factor (intermediate risk), and 53% for patients with two to four risk factors (high risk).

Respective hazard ratios for worse PFS in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 1 (reference), 4.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-8.68), and 8.83 (95% CI, 4.32-18.03).

Respective HR for worse OS was 1, 7.06 (95% CI, 2.55-19.53), and 15.12 (95% CI, 5.58-40.99).

There were no significant differences in either PFS or OS when either LDH or stage was added into the model.

The BL-IPI was prognostic for PFS and OS in all subgroups, including HIV-positive or -negative patients, those with MYC rearrangements, stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4, or those treated with rituximab versus those who were not.

As noted before, 3-year PFS rates in the validation cohort for low, intermediate, high-risk groups were 96%, 82%, and 63% respectively, and 3-year OS rates were 99%, 85%, and 64%.
 

Why the CNS discrepancy?

In the question and answer session following the presentation, comoderator Christopher J. Melani, MD, from the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., said that “it was interesting to see the difference between CNS involvement in both the U.S. and the international cohort,” and asked whether Dr. Olszweski could elaborate on whether baseline CNS involvement was assessed by contrast-enhanced MRI of flow cytometry studies of cerebrospinal fluid.

“Could some of these differences between the U.S. and the international cohort be from the baseline assessment differing between the two?” he asked.

Dr. Olszewski replied that the retrospective nature of the data precluded capturing those data, but added that “I do suspect there may be some differences in the way that central nervous system is staged in different countries. In the United States the use of flow cytometry is more commonly employed, but we don’t know how it is used internationally. We do not know how often this is staged radiographically.”

Asked by others who viewed the presentation whether extranodal disease or peripheral blood involvement were prognostic in the final model, Dr. Olszewski replied that “one has to understand that, when one constructs a prognostic index, there is a balance between trying to input as much information as possible and to create something that is useful, clinically meaningful, and accurate.”

He said that, despite trying different models with different factors, “we couldn’t get the discrimination to be much better than the basic model that we ultimately created, so we favored using a more parsimonious model.”

No study funding source was reported. Dr. Olszewski reported research funding from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. Dr. Melani reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Olszewski AJ et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 705.

A newly devised, validated prognostic tool – the Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – can consistently identify low-risk patients who might benefit from treatment de-escalation, and high-risk patients who are unlikely to be cured with current therapies and may require novel approaches, investigators said.

In a cohort of patients treated at international sites, patients with a low-risk score on the BL-IPI had a 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 96%, and 3-year overall survival rate (OS) of 99%. In contrast, the 3-year PFS rate for patients in the high-risk category was 63%, and the 3-year OS rate was 64%, reported Adam J Olszewski, MD, from the Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, both in Providence.

“The Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index – or the ‘BLI-PI’ [‘blippy’] as it was inevitably called – is a novel prognostic index that is specific to Burkitt lymphoma. It has been validated with sufficient calibration and discrimination in external data sets to allow for simple stratification and comparison of risk distribution in geographically diverse cohorts,” he said in an oral abstract presented virtually during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Inconsistent criteria

There is a need for a Burkitt-specific index, he said, because of significant differences in age, stage at presentation, and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels between patients with Burkitt and those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and because historical definitions of “low-risk” Burkitt lymphoma have been inconsistent, with less than 10% of patients falling into this group, leaving the remainder in a undifferentiated “high-risk” category.

“Burkitt lymphoma is considered highly curable, but current therapy requires administration of dose-intense chemoimmunotherapy for which there are many chemotherapy backbone regimens developed across the world, and used mostly locally. These are often studied in phase 2 studies with limited sample sizes, which makes it difficult to compare populations across trials,” Dr. Olszewski said.

A validated prognostic index can help clinicians and researchers compare cohorts and can be used to help design future trials, he added.

To devise the BL-IPI, the investigators first selected a retrospective cohort of 570 adults with Burkitt lymphoma treated at 30 U.S. centers for whom data on outcomes were available.

They determined the best prognostic cutoffs for age, LDH, hemoglobin and albumin levels, and identified independent risk factors using stepwise selection in Cox regression and lasso regression analysis, a machine learning approach. The variables included age; sex; HIV-positivity status; loss of MYC rearrangement; performance status; stage; nodal involvement; marrow involvement; central nervous system involvement; and LDH, hemoglobin, and albumin levels.

For validation, they pooled data from European, Canadian, Australian, and U.K. studies to identify 457 patients for whom retrospective treatment and outcomes data were available.

The derivation and validation cohorts were similar in most respects, expect for a higher proportion of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or higher in the validation cohort (22% vs. 35%), and a higher proportion of patients with CNS involvement in the U.S.-based derivation cohort (19% vs. 10%, respectively).

Therapy also differed markedly between the U.S. and international cohorts, with about 30% each of U.S. patients receiving either the CODOX-M/IVAC (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine) regimen, DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) regimen, or hCVAD/MA (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine) regimen, and the remaining 10% receiving other, unspecified therapy.

In contrast, 65% of the patients in the international (validation) cohort received CODOX-M/IVAC, 10% and 9%, respectively, received DA-EPOCH-R and hCVAD/MA, and 16% receiving other regimens.

Rituximab was administered to 91% of U.S. and 95% of international patients.
 

Higher survival rates outside US

Both PFS and OS were higher in the international versus U.S. cohort. At a median follow-up of 45 months, the PFS rate in the United States was 65%, and the OS rate was 70%.

In the international cohort, after a median follow-up of 52 months, the PFS rate was 75%, and the OS rate was 76%, the investigators found.

Reasons for the differences may be because of differences in treatment regimens, socioeconomic and racial disparities in the United States versus other countries, or to decentralized Burkitt lymphoma therapy in the United States, Dr. Olszewski said.

In univariate analysis, factors significantly predictive of worse PFS included age 40 years or older, ECOG performance status 2 or greater, stage 3 or 4 disease, marrow involvement, CNS involvement, LDH more than three times the upper limit of normal, and hemoglobin <11.5 g/dL (P < .001 for all preceding), as well as albumin <3.5 g/dL (P = .001).

“However, the multivariable analysis was more complicated, because many of these factors were overlapping, and most patients with high LDH also had advanced disease, and this group also encompassed patients who had bone marrow and CNS involvement,” he said.

Using the two types of regression analysis mentioned before, investigators identified ECOG performance status 2 or greater (P = .001), age 40 and older (P = .005), LDH greater than three times the upper limit of normal (P < .001) and CNS involvement (P = .002) as significant predictors for worse outcomes in multivariable analysis, and were included in the final model.

“We initially had five groups according to the number of these factors, but we observed that the survival curves for patients with two, three, or four factors were overlapping, and not significantly different, so ultimately we had three risk groups. In the derivation (U.S.) cohort, patients in the low-risk group, with no risk factors, a 3-year PFS of 92%, compared with 72% for patients with one risk factor (intermediate risk), and 53% for patients with two to four risk factors (high risk).

Respective hazard ratios for worse PFS in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 1 (reference), 4.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-8.68), and 8.83 (95% CI, 4.32-18.03).

Respective HR for worse OS was 1, 7.06 (95% CI, 2.55-19.53), and 15.12 (95% CI, 5.58-40.99).

There were no significant differences in either PFS or OS when either LDH or stage was added into the model.

The BL-IPI was prognostic for PFS and OS in all subgroups, including HIV-positive or -negative patients, those with MYC rearrangements, stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4, or those treated with rituximab versus those who were not.

As noted before, 3-year PFS rates in the validation cohort for low, intermediate, high-risk groups were 96%, 82%, and 63% respectively, and 3-year OS rates were 99%, 85%, and 64%.
 

Why the CNS discrepancy?

In the question and answer session following the presentation, comoderator Christopher J. Melani, MD, from the Lymphoid Malignancies Branch at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., said that “it was interesting to see the difference between CNS involvement in both the U.S. and the international cohort,” and asked whether Dr. Olszweski could elaborate on whether baseline CNS involvement was assessed by contrast-enhanced MRI of flow cytometry studies of cerebrospinal fluid.

“Could some of these differences between the U.S. and the international cohort be from the baseline assessment differing between the two?” he asked.

Dr. Olszewski replied that the retrospective nature of the data precluded capturing those data, but added that “I do suspect there may be some differences in the way that central nervous system is staged in different countries. In the United States the use of flow cytometry is more commonly employed, but we don’t know how it is used internationally. We do not know how often this is staged radiographically.”

Asked by others who viewed the presentation whether extranodal disease or peripheral blood involvement were prognostic in the final model, Dr. Olszewski replied that “one has to understand that, when one constructs a prognostic index, there is a balance between trying to input as much information as possible and to create something that is useful, clinically meaningful, and accurate.”

He said that, despite trying different models with different factors, “we couldn’t get the discrimination to be much better than the basic model that we ultimately created, so we favored using a more parsimonious model.”

No study funding source was reported. Dr. Olszewski reported research funding from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. Dr. Melani reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Olszewski AJ et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 705.

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

In heavily pretreated pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL), venetoclax plus navitoclax with chemotherapy was well tolerated with promising responses, according to results of a phase 1 trial. Delayed count recovery, however, stated lead author Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, MD, PhD, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, remained a key safety concern.
 

Unmet medical need

Despite intensive chemotherapy and novel therapeutics, Dr. Rubnitz said in a virtual oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, patients with relapsed or refractory ALL and LL have a poor prognosis and represent an unmet medical need. Venetoclax, a potent, highly selective oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, and navitoclax, an oral BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor, directly bind their BCL-2 family member targets to promote apoptosis. In ALL preclinical models, venetoclax and navitoclax have demonstrated antileukemic effects, which suggests dependence on BCL-2 family members. Venetoclax efficacy associated with BCL-2 family inhibition may be potentiated and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with standard-dose navitoclax monotherapy may be avoided by adding venetoclax to low-dose navitoclax. Previous reports of an ongoing phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study in an adult and pediatric population (NCT03181126), Dr. Rubnitz noted, showed the venetoclax/navitoclax/chemotherapy combination to be well tolerated with promising response rates. In the current report, Dr. Rubnitz presented data on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the triplet regimen in the subgroup of pediatric patients.

The study included pediatric patients (ages, 4-18 years and weight ≥20 kg) receiving venetoclax (weight-adjusted equivalent of 400 mg daily) and navitoclax at three dose levels (25, 50, 100 mg) for patients weighing ≥45 kg and two dose levels (25, 50 mg) for patients weighing <45 kg. At investigator’s discretion, patients could receive chemotherapy (polyethylene glycosylated–asparaginase, vincristine, and dexamethasone). The primary outcomes were safety (including incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events) and pharmacokinetics. A safety expansion cohort assessed a 21-day dosing schedule of venetoclax at 400 mg followed by 7 days off plus navitoclax at 50 mg (patients ≥45 kg) or 25 mg (patients <45 kg).

Investigators enrolled 18 patients <18 years (median age, 10 years; range, 6-16; 56% male), with 12 in the dose-escalation cohort and 6 in the safety-expansion cohort. Three patients had prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T treatment and four had received prior stem cell transplantation. In the overall cohort, B-cell ALL was most common (n = 13, 72%), with T-cell ALL (n = 3, 17%) and LL (n = 2, 11%) following. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). All patients received chemotherapy.
 

Grade 3-4 adverse events

Venetoclax-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% of patients. Similarly, navitoclax-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 56% of patients. Navitoclax dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two patients (11%), delayed count recovery on 25 mg and sepsis on 50 mg. No grade 5 adverse events and tumor lysis syndrome were reported.

Among secondary endpoint efficacy parameters, complete responses, CRs with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) and CRs without platelet recovery (CRp) combined occurred in 62% of B-ALL patients (8/13), 33% of T-cell ALL patients (1/3) and in 50% of LL patients (1/2). Separately, CRs/CRis/CRps occurred in 33%/22%/0% of all patients, respectively.

Subsequently, 5 of 18 (28%) of patients proceeded to stem cell transplantation and 3 (17%) to CAR T. Eight patients (44%) died from disease progression.
 

BH3 profiling

BH3 profiling revealed that at baseline, patients with B-cell ALL had more diversity in BCL-2 and BCL-XL dependency than did patients with T-cell ALL or early T-cell precursor ALL. The fact that responses were observed in patients who were BCL-2 or BCL-XL dependent, Dr. Rubnitz said, supports the use of venetoclax plus navitoclax in these patients. Analysis of these results led to a recommended phase 2 dose for pediatric patients of 400 mg venetoclax with 25 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing <45 kg) or 50 mg navitoclax (for patients weighing 45 kg or more).

Dr. Rubnitz concluded: “Venetoclax plus navitoclax plus chemotherapy was well tolerated in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory ALL or LL, with promising response rates observed in a heavily pretreated pediatric population.”

Asked whether the combination might be used also before the refractory setting, in a minimal residual disease (MRD) setting, Dr. Rubnitz replied: “We have a lot of safety data on venetoclax but very little on navitoclax. The next trial, being developed by Seth Karol, MD, will include relapsed patients. MRD-positive patients will also be eligible for enrollment.” To a further question as to whether guiding titration via BH3 profiling would lead to improved outcomes, Dr. Rubnitz said, “I think BH3 profiling can be used to identify which patients will respond to these drugs, but we are still a long way from using it for titrating the doses and dose ratios for the two drugs.”

Dr. Rubnitz disclosed research funding from AbbVie.

SOURCE: Rubnitz JE et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 466.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.

Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.

The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.

In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.

In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.

The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.

The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.

Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.

FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.

“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.

“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”

As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.

This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.

Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.

Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.

Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.

The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.

In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.

In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.

The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.

The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.

Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.

FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.

“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.

“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”

As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.

This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.

Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.

Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.