Hematology News

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Approximately half of patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with glofitamab showed clinical response, based on phase 2 data from 154 adults.

“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.

Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.

The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.

The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.

At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.

“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.

The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.

“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.

“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.

A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.

Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.

The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.

The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.

The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.

“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
 

More follow-up needed, but findings show promise

A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.

Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.

Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”

Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”

In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare

Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.

New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.

Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.

Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.

So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
 

Maybe next time try a paper route

There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.

AvailableLight/Getty Images

This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.

In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
 

You look like I need more sleep

Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.

“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.

When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.

We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
 

The expanding-hole illusion of science

Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.

So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.

Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.

Laeng, Nabil, and Kitaoka

Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.

Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”

The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.

Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.

Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”

And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.

The trial, known as DETERMINATION, found that newly diagnosed patients treated with a triplet of drugs had longer progression-free survival (PFS) if they received an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) soon after the drug therapy than if they simply had their stem cells collected for a possible future transplant.

Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.

However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.

In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.  

The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.

“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
 

Study details

In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.

At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.

The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.

“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.

Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.

“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.

When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).

However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.

“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”

He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.

“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
 

Lack of difference in overall survival

These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.

“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.” 

Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.

The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.” 

Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

Patients who are immunocompromised showed no increased risk of surgical site infection when undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery, regardless of whether or not they received antibiotics, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.

The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.

Dr. Nguyen

Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).

Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).

The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).

The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.

Dr. Nima M. Gharavi

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

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

A weekly subcutaneous dose of teclistamab resulted in high response rates among adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, based on data from 165 patients in the MajesTEC-1 study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“We have limited treatment options for triple-class exposed and refractory multiple myeloma patients, especially for use in the community,” coauthor Dr. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “Teclistamab is a BCMA directed bispecific antibody that is showing high response rates at the recommended subcutaneous phase 2 doses (RP2D),” and has a strong safety profile, he explained.

Teclistamab tackles two targets – both CD3 on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) on the surface of myeloma cells – said Dr. Ajay K. Nooka of Emory University, Atlanta, in the meeting presentation. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

After teclistamab showed promising efficacy and an acceptable level of side effects in phase 1, researchers enrolled 165 adults aged 33-84 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The patients had experienced at least three previous lines of therapy (LOT). All patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg/kg of body weight following step-up doses of 0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was overall response.

The median age of the patients was 64 years; 58% were male, 81.2% were White. The median prior LOT was 5; all of the patients were triple-class exposed (100%); 70% were penta-drug exposed, 78% were triple-class refractory, and 30% penta-drug refractory.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 63% over a median follow-up period of approximately 14.1 months. In addition, 39.4% of patients had a complete response or better, and 26.7% had no minimal residual disease, for a negative minimal residual disease rate of 46.2% in patients with complete response. The median durations of response and progression-free survival were 18.4 months and 11.3 months, respectively.

“The ORR was consistent across clinically relevant subgroups, including high cytogenetic risk and penta-drug refractory subgroups,” Dr. Nooka said in his presentation.

The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome, which occurred in 72.1% of patients; however, only 0.6% of these events were grade 3, and none were grade 4. Other adverse events included neutropenia in 70.9% (64.2% of events were grade 3 or 4), anemia (52.1%, 37.0% of events were grade 3 or 4, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (40%, 21.2% of events were grade 3 or 4). Infections occurred in 76.4% of patients overall, 44.8% of which were grade 3 or 4, and neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%). The five cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (CRS) were grade 1 or 2.

A total of 2 patients (1.2%) discontinued the study because of adverse events, but no discontinuations or dose reductions occurred as a result of neurotoxic events.

A total of 5 deaths attributed to teclistamab occurred during the study: 2 caused by COVID-19, 1 pneumonia, 1 hepatic failure, and 1 progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The responses were durable and persisted over time, said Dr. Nooka. At the point of data cutoff, 64.4% of patients who responded maintained that response.

Overall, the data support teclistamab as “a promising new, off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting therapy targeting BCMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM,” with phase 3 studies ongoing and early access programs in progress, Dr. Nooka concluded.

 “The ORR and durability of response seen with teclistamab is very impressive when one sees the data for other single agents approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the past,” Dr. Usmani said in an interview. “I hope the current data will help get a regulatory approval for the triple class exposed MM population.”

However, potential barriers to widespread use of teclistamab in practice include logistics and a learning curve for practicing hematologists/oncologists, Dr. Usmani noted. “While the CRS appears to be grade 1 or 2 and very manageable, the logistics of giving bispecific antibodies in the community setting and managing CRS during the first cycle of therapy in the community will need to be worked out, and partnership with academic centers that have experience in managing these patients will be needed, he added.

As for additional research, “teclistamab is being combined with other MM therapies and being explored in earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Usmani said.
 

Be ready to manage infections

Despite promising early findings, the use of teclistamab and other BCMA-targeting biospecific therapies is “not a free lunch” for refractory and relapsed MM patients, said discussant Dr. Madhav V. Dhodapkar of Emory University, Atlanta, during the discussion period after the ASCO presentation.

Although the risk of CRS and ICANS appears low, “infections are emerging as a major adverse event” that need to be recognized and managed, he said.

A distinct pattern of infections may be emerging, based on data from the current study and other studies of similar therapies, with infections such as Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, Dr. Dhodapkar added.

He noted other considerations for studies of teclistamab and similar therapies, including the need to address both host-related and tumor-related factors, as well as seasonal and opportunistic threats such as COVID-19.

Future research questions include whether there is a role for pathogen-specific surveillance to help mitigate infection risk, including COVID-19 risk management strategies, he emphasized.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships as a consultant or advisor, speakers’ bureau member, and/or recipient of research funding from serving as a consultant or advisor for Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Seattle Genetics, Skyline Diagnostics, and Takeda. Lead author of the New England Journal paper Dr. Philippe Moreau disclosed relationships with companies including Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. ASCO presenting author Dr. Nooka disclosed relationships with companies including Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Arch Oncology, and Takeda.

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

Trauma surgeons are in the tough position of seeing victims just after gun violence across the United States, and they have some advice.

Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”

These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.

“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
 

Firsthand perspective

“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.

“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.

One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.

“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.

On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”

Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.

“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings

“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.

“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.

“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
 

A public health crisis

“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.

A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.

The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”

“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”

The recommendations address these areas:

• Gun ownership
• Firearm registration
• Licensure
• Education and training
• Ownership responsibilities
• Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
• Safety innovation and technology
• Research
• The culture of violence
• Social isolation and mental health

For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”

This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.

“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.

For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.

The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
 

Research and reporting reforms

The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.

“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”

Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.

In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.

Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.

“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
 

The time is now

Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.

“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”

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

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

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

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

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

A California woman who pretended to have cancer and received more than $100,000 in charitable donations from hundreds of people has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amanda Christine Riley pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for soliciting donations from people through various social media sites to help pay for cancer treatments that she never received or needed, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In total, the government identified 349 individuals and entities who made contributions totaling $105,513. Ms. Riley was sentenced to 60 months in prison on May 3.

Ms. Riley is hardly the first person to fake a cancer diagnosis for money. In fact, the phenomenon of faking illness online now occurs so often that researchers have given it a name: “Munchausen by internet.” However, few appear to be penalized with prison time.

In this case, the scam began in 2012, when Ms. Riley falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and a blog to document her imaginary condition and “aggressively” solicit donations to cover her supposed medical expenses, the DOJ said.

Instead, Ms. Riley used the donations to pay living expenses.

According to the DOJ, Ms. Riley went to “great lengths to maintain her deception.” She shaved her head to appear to be undergoing chemotherapy, faked her medical records, forged physicians’ letters and medical certifications, and convinced family members to back up her false claims.

Ms. Riley’s scheme continued for 7 years, until 2019, when her deception was uncovered by an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service and the San Jose Police Department.

Ms. Riley was charged in July 2020 and pleaded guilty in October 2021. 

In addition to serving 5 years in prison, Ms. Riley must pay back the $105,513 and undergo 3 years of supervision after her release.

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