User login
First-line molecular subtype-based precision therapy shows promise in metastatic TNBC in phase 2
Key clinical point: A molecular subtype-guided treatment based on four triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes nearly doubled progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with control therapy with nab-paclitaxel and had a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic TNBC.
Major finding: Patients who received nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based therapy vs only nab-paclitaxel had significantly longer progression-free survival (median 11.3 months vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio 0.44; P < .0001). Neutropenia (30% vs 23%), anemia (7% vs none), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6% vs 1%) were the most common types of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the subtype-based group vs control group.
Study details: Findings are from the ongoing phase 2 FUTURE-SUPER trial that included 139 women age 18-70 years with metastatic or recurrent TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive a nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based regimen or only nab-paclitaxel.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, the National Key Research and Development Project of China, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals.
Source: Fan L et al. Optimising first-line subtyping-based therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (FUTURE-SUPER): A multi-cohort, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024 (Jan 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00579-X
Key clinical point: A molecular subtype-guided treatment based on four triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes nearly doubled progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with control therapy with nab-paclitaxel and had a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic TNBC.
Major finding: Patients who received nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based therapy vs only nab-paclitaxel had significantly longer progression-free survival (median 11.3 months vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio 0.44; P < .0001). Neutropenia (30% vs 23%), anemia (7% vs none), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6% vs 1%) were the most common types of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the subtype-based group vs control group.
Study details: Findings are from the ongoing phase 2 FUTURE-SUPER trial that included 139 women age 18-70 years with metastatic or recurrent TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive a nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based regimen or only nab-paclitaxel.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, the National Key Research and Development Project of China, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals.
Source: Fan L et al. Optimising first-line subtyping-based therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (FUTURE-SUPER): A multi-cohort, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024 (Jan 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00579-X
Key clinical point: A molecular subtype-guided treatment based on four triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes nearly doubled progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with control therapy with nab-paclitaxel and had a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic TNBC.
Major finding: Patients who received nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based therapy vs only nab-paclitaxel had significantly longer progression-free survival (median 11.3 months vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio 0.44; P < .0001). Neutropenia (30% vs 23%), anemia (7% vs none), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6% vs 1%) were the most common types of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the subtype-based group vs control group.
Study details: Findings are from the ongoing phase 2 FUTURE-SUPER trial that included 139 women age 18-70 years with metastatic or recurrent TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive a nab-paclitaxel + subtype-based regimen or only nab-paclitaxel.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, the National Key Research and Development Project of China, and other sources. Two authors declared being employees of Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals.
Source: Fan L et al. Optimising first-line subtyping-based therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (FUTURE-SUPER): A multi-cohort, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024 (Jan 8). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00579-X
Leisure-time physical activity may lower premenopausal breast cancer risk
Key clinical point: Higher levels of leisure-time physical activity reduced the risk for premenopausal breast cancer (BC) significantly, with more prominent effects observed for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched BC.
Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.5 years, higher vs lower levels (90th vs 10th percentile) of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduced risk for overall BC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.90; P < .001) and a substantial 45% reduction in the risk for HER2-enriched BC (aHR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82).
Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of the data from 19 prospective cohorts that included a total of 547,601 premenopausal women with 10,231 incident cases of in situ or invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute and US National Institutes of Health, and other sources. Some authors declared employment with; holding patents, stocks, and other ownership interests in; serving in consulting or advisory roles for; or receiving honoraria or research funding from various sources.
Source: Timmins IR et al. International pooled analysis of leisure-time physical activity and premenopausal breast cancer in women from 19 cohorts. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01101
Key clinical point: Higher levels of leisure-time physical activity reduced the risk for premenopausal breast cancer (BC) significantly, with more prominent effects observed for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched BC.
Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.5 years, higher vs lower levels (90th vs 10th percentile) of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduced risk for overall BC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.90; P < .001) and a substantial 45% reduction in the risk for HER2-enriched BC (aHR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82).
Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of the data from 19 prospective cohorts that included a total of 547,601 premenopausal women with 10,231 incident cases of in situ or invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute and US National Institutes of Health, and other sources. Some authors declared employment with; holding patents, stocks, and other ownership interests in; serving in consulting or advisory roles for; or receiving honoraria or research funding from various sources.
Source: Timmins IR et al. International pooled analysis of leisure-time physical activity and premenopausal breast cancer in women from 19 cohorts. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01101
Key clinical point: Higher levels of leisure-time physical activity reduced the risk for premenopausal breast cancer (BC) significantly, with more prominent effects observed for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched BC.
Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.5 years, higher vs lower levels (90th vs 10th percentile) of leisure-time physical activity were associated with a 10% reduced risk for overall BC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.90; P < .001) and a substantial 45% reduction in the risk for HER2-enriched BC (aHR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.82).
Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of the data from 19 prospective cohorts that included a total of 547,601 premenopausal women with 10,231 incident cases of in situ or invasive BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute and US National Institutes of Health, and other sources. Some authors declared employment with; holding patents, stocks, and other ownership interests in; serving in consulting or advisory roles for; or receiving honoraria or research funding from various sources.
Source: Timmins IR et al. International pooled analysis of leisure-time physical activity and premenopausal breast cancer in women from 19 cohorts. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01101
Loss of progesterone receptors worsens survival in HER2− inflammatory BC
Key clinical point: In patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) inflammatory breast cancer (BC), the estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/progesterone receptor-negative (PR−) vs ER+/PR+ phenotype was associated with significantly worse survival outcomes.
Major finding: Patients with ER+/PR‒ vs ER+/PR+ phenotype had significantly worse BC-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.764; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 1.675; P < .001) outcomes.
Study details: This retrospective study analyzed the data of 1553 women with ER+/HER2− inflammatory BC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of whom 25.5% and 74.5% of patients presented with ER+/PR− and ER+/PR+ phenotypes, respectively.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the North Sichuan Medical College Scientific Research and Development Project and Guigang Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Luo Y et al. ER+/PR− phenotype exhibits more aggressive biological features and worse outcome compared with ER+/PR+ phenotype in HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2024;14:197 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50755-4
Key clinical point: In patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) inflammatory breast cancer (BC), the estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/progesterone receptor-negative (PR−) vs ER+/PR+ phenotype was associated with significantly worse survival outcomes.
Major finding: Patients with ER+/PR‒ vs ER+/PR+ phenotype had significantly worse BC-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.764; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 1.675; P < .001) outcomes.
Study details: This retrospective study analyzed the data of 1553 women with ER+/HER2− inflammatory BC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of whom 25.5% and 74.5% of patients presented with ER+/PR− and ER+/PR+ phenotypes, respectively.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the North Sichuan Medical College Scientific Research and Development Project and Guigang Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Luo Y et al. ER+/PR− phenotype exhibits more aggressive biological features and worse outcome compared with ER+/PR+ phenotype in HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2024;14:197 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50755-4
Key clinical point: In patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) inflammatory breast cancer (BC), the estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/progesterone receptor-negative (PR−) vs ER+/PR+ phenotype was associated with significantly worse survival outcomes.
Major finding: Patients with ER+/PR‒ vs ER+/PR+ phenotype had significantly worse BC-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.764; P < .001) and overall survival (HR 1.675; P < .001) outcomes.
Study details: This retrospective study analyzed the data of 1553 women with ER+/HER2− inflammatory BC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, of whom 25.5% and 74.5% of patients presented with ER+/PR− and ER+/PR+ phenotypes, respectively.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the North Sichuan Medical College Scientific Research and Development Project and Guigang Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Luo Y et al. ER+/PR− phenotype exhibits more aggressive biological features and worse outcome compared with ER+/PR+ phenotype in HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2024;14:197 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50755-4
Radiotherapy-pyrotinib-capecitabine combo benefits patients with ERBB2+ BC and brain metastases
Key clinical point: Combining radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine led to improved intracranial survival outcomes and an acceptable radiation necrosis rate in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) with brain metastases.
Major finding: The 1-year central nervous system (CNS) progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 74.9% (95% CI 61.9%-90.7%), and the median CNS PFS was 18.0 months (95% CI 15.5-not reached). Diarrhea (7.5%) was the most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse event. Asymptomatic radiation necrosis was identified in only 6% of the 67 lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial that included 40 women with ERBB2+ BC and brain metastases who received fractionated stereotactic or whole-brain radiotherapy and initiated treatment with pyrotinib and capecitabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Three authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including the NSFC.
Source: Yang Z et al. Brain radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer and brain metastases: A nonrandomized phase 2 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024 (Jan 4). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5791
Key clinical point: Combining radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine led to improved intracranial survival outcomes and an acceptable radiation necrosis rate in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) with brain metastases.
Major finding: The 1-year central nervous system (CNS) progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 74.9% (95% CI 61.9%-90.7%), and the median CNS PFS was 18.0 months (95% CI 15.5-not reached). Diarrhea (7.5%) was the most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse event. Asymptomatic radiation necrosis was identified in only 6% of the 67 lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial that included 40 women with ERBB2+ BC and brain metastases who received fractionated stereotactic or whole-brain radiotherapy and initiated treatment with pyrotinib and capecitabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Three authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including the NSFC.
Source: Yang Z et al. Brain radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer and brain metastases: A nonrandomized phase 2 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024 (Jan 4). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5791
Key clinical point: Combining radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine led to improved intracranial survival outcomes and an acceptable radiation necrosis rate in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) with brain metastases.
Major finding: The 1-year central nervous system (CNS) progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 74.9% (95% CI 61.9%-90.7%), and the median CNS PFS was 18.0 months (95% CI 15.5-not reached). Diarrhea (7.5%) was the most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse event. Asymptomatic radiation necrosis was identified in only 6% of the 67 lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial that included 40 women with ERBB2+ BC and brain metastases who received fractionated stereotactic or whole-brain radiotherapy and initiated treatment with pyrotinib and capecitabine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Three authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various sources, including the NSFC.
Source: Yang Z et al. Brain radiotherapy with pyrotinib and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer and brain metastases: A nonrandomized phase 2 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024 (Jan 4). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5791
Magnetic seeds as effective as guidewire in BC patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery
Key clinical point: In patients with early breast cancer (BC) who were undergoing breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node detection (SLND), a combination of paramagnetic seed + superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) led to comparable rates of re-excision and resection ratios as the more standard approach with guidewire + SPIO.
Major finding: Paramagnetic seed + SPIO and guidewire + SPIO showed comparable re-excision rates (2.87% vs 2.84%; P = .99) and median resection ratios (2.01 vs 1.93; P = .70). The rate of failed breast lesion localizations was significantly more in the guidewire vs paramagnetic seed group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MAGTOTAL trial that included 426 patients with early BC scheduled to undergo breast-conserving surgery and SLND who were randomly assigned to either lesion localization using paramagnetic seed + SPIO or guidewire + SPIO.
Disclosures: This study was supported partly by Uppsala University Hospital. Sweden, and institutional grants from Uppsala University and other sources. A Karakatsanis declared receiving grants and honoraria from various sources outside the study.
Source: Pantiora E et al. Magnetic seed vs guidewire breast cancer localization with magnetic lymph node detection: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6520
Key clinical point: In patients with early breast cancer (BC) who were undergoing breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node detection (SLND), a combination of paramagnetic seed + superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) led to comparable rates of re-excision and resection ratios as the more standard approach with guidewire + SPIO.
Major finding: Paramagnetic seed + SPIO and guidewire + SPIO showed comparable re-excision rates (2.87% vs 2.84%; P = .99) and median resection ratios (2.01 vs 1.93; P = .70). The rate of failed breast lesion localizations was significantly more in the guidewire vs paramagnetic seed group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MAGTOTAL trial that included 426 patients with early BC scheduled to undergo breast-conserving surgery and SLND who were randomly assigned to either lesion localization using paramagnetic seed + SPIO or guidewire + SPIO.
Disclosures: This study was supported partly by Uppsala University Hospital. Sweden, and institutional grants from Uppsala University and other sources. A Karakatsanis declared receiving grants and honoraria from various sources outside the study.
Source: Pantiora E et al. Magnetic seed vs guidewire breast cancer localization with magnetic lymph node detection: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6520
Key clinical point: In patients with early breast cancer (BC) who were undergoing breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node detection (SLND), a combination of paramagnetic seed + superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) led to comparable rates of re-excision and resection ratios as the more standard approach with guidewire + SPIO.
Major finding: Paramagnetic seed + SPIO and guidewire + SPIO showed comparable re-excision rates (2.87% vs 2.84%; P = .99) and median resection ratios (2.01 vs 1.93; P = .70). The rate of failed breast lesion localizations was significantly more in the guidewire vs paramagnetic seed group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MAGTOTAL trial that included 426 patients with early BC scheduled to undergo breast-conserving surgery and SLND who were randomly assigned to either lesion localization using paramagnetic seed + SPIO or guidewire + SPIO.
Disclosures: This study was supported partly by Uppsala University Hospital. Sweden, and institutional grants from Uppsala University and other sources. A Karakatsanis declared receiving grants and honoraria from various sources outside the study.
Source: Pantiora E et al. Magnetic seed vs guidewire breast cancer localization with magnetic lymph node detection: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6520
Bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin before WBRT benefits intractable breast cancer brain metastases
Key clinical point: Induction treatment with bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEEP) before whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) vs WBRT alone improved brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer (BMBC).
Major finding: Patients who received BEEP + WBRT vs WBRT alone had significantly longer median brain-specific PFS based on a predefined α level of ≤0.20 (8.1 vs 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.71; P = .15) and higher 8-month brain-specific PFS rate (48.7% vs 26.3%; P = .03). Neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and leukopenia were the most common adverse events in the BEEP induction arm.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 A-PLUS trial that included 118 WBRT-naive patients with invasive breast cancer who had ≥1 metastatic brain tumors and were randomly assigned to receive BEEP induction followed by WBRT or only WBRT.
Disclosures: This study received investigational product support and grants funding from Roche Taiwan, Chugai Pharma Taiwan, and other sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees, lecture fees, consulting or speakers’ bureau fees, travel support, or grants from Roche and other sources.
Source: Chen TW et al. Whole-brain radiotherapy alone vs preceded by bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin for untreated brain metastases from breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5456
Key clinical point: Induction treatment with bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEEP) before whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) vs WBRT alone improved brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer (BMBC).
Major finding: Patients who received BEEP + WBRT vs WBRT alone had significantly longer median brain-specific PFS based on a predefined α level of ≤0.20 (8.1 vs 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.71; P = .15) and higher 8-month brain-specific PFS rate (48.7% vs 26.3%; P = .03). Neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and leukopenia were the most common adverse events in the BEEP induction arm.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 A-PLUS trial that included 118 WBRT-naive patients with invasive breast cancer who had ≥1 metastatic brain tumors and were randomly assigned to receive BEEP induction followed by WBRT or only WBRT.
Disclosures: This study received investigational product support and grants funding from Roche Taiwan, Chugai Pharma Taiwan, and other sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees, lecture fees, consulting or speakers’ bureau fees, travel support, or grants from Roche and other sources.
Source: Chen TW et al. Whole-brain radiotherapy alone vs preceded by bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin for untreated brain metastases from breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5456
Key clinical point: Induction treatment with bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEEP) before whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) vs WBRT alone improved brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer (BMBC).
Major finding: Patients who received BEEP + WBRT vs WBRT alone had significantly longer median brain-specific PFS based on a predefined α level of ≤0.20 (8.1 vs 6.5 months; hazard ratio 0.71; P = .15) and higher 8-month brain-specific PFS rate (48.7% vs 26.3%; P = .03). Neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and leukopenia were the most common adverse events in the BEEP induction arm.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 A-PLUS trial that included 118 WBRT-naive patients with invasive breast cancer who had ≥1 metastatic brain tumors and were randomly assigned to receive BEEP induction followed by WBRT or only WBRT.
Disclosures: This study received investigational product support and grants funding from Roche Taiwan, Chugai Pharma Taiwan, and other sources. Four authors declared receiving personal fees, lecture fees, consulting or speakers’ bureau fees, travel support, or grants from Roche and other sources.
Source: Chen TW et al. Whole-brain radiotherapy alone vs preceded by bevacizumab, etoposide, and cisplatin for untreated brain metastases from breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5456
Carboplatin + atezolizumab combo improves OS in metastatic TNBC
Key clinical point: Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Major finding: Compared with carboplatin alone, carboplatin + atezolizumab demonstrated significant improvement in OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; log-rank P = .03) even though the improvement in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was not statistically significant (HR 0.66; log-rank P = .05). The prevalence of grade 3/4 serious adverse events was higher with carboplatin + atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 TBCRC 043 trial that included 106 patients with metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive either carboplatin alone or in combination with atezolizumab.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a US National Cancer Institute grant, Susan G. Komen grants, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the funding agencies.
Source: Lehmann BD et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: The TBCRC 043 phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5424
Key clinical point: Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Major finding: Compared with carboplatin alone, carboplatin + atezolizumab demonstrated significant improvement in OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; log-rank P = .03) even though the improvement in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was not statistically significant (HR 0.66; log-rank P = .05). The prevalence of grade 3/4 serious adverse events was higher with carboplatin + atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 TBCRC 043 trial that included 106 patients with metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive either carboplatin alone or in combination with atezolizumab.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a US National Cancer Institute grant, Susan G. Komen grants, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the funding agencies.
Source: Lehmann BD et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: The TBCRC 043 phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5424
Key clinical point: Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Major finding: Compared with carboplatin alone, carboplatin + atezolizumab demonstrated significant improvement in OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; log-rank P = .03) even though the improvement in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was not statistically significant (HR 0.66; log-rank P = .05). The prevalence of grade 3/4 serious adverse events was higher with carboplatin + atezolizumab vs carboplatin alone (41% vs 8%).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 TBCRC 043 trial that included 106 patients with metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive either carboplatin alone or in combination with atezolizumab.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a US National Cancer Institute grant, Susan G. Komen grants, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from or having other ties with various sources, including the funding agencies.
Source: Lehmann BD et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: The TBCRC 043 phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.5424
Benign breast disease on percutaneous biopsy increases breast cancer risk
Key clinical point: Compared with the general population, the risk for overall breast cancer (BC) was nearly double in women with benign breast disease (BBD) diagnosed by percutaneous biopsies.
Major finding: Patients with BBD vs the general population were at a significantly higher risk for overall BC (standard incidence ratio [SIR] 1.95; 95% CI 1.76-2.17), including invasive BC (SIR 1.56; 95% CI 1.37-1.78) and ductal carcinoma in situ (SIR 3.10; 95% CI 2.54-3.77). The SIR for overall BC increased progressively with increasing BBD severity (nonproliferative 1.42; 95% CI 1.19-1.71; proliferative disease without atypia 2.19; 95% CI 1.88-2.54; atypical hyperplasia 3.91; 95% CI 2.97-5.14).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4819 female patients who underwent a BBD biopsy, of whom 338 patients had incident BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Four authors declared receiving grants, research support, or personal fees from NIH and other sources.
Source: Sherman ME et al. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk in the percutaneous biopsy era. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 13). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6382
Key clinical point: Compared with the general population, the risk for overall breast cancer (BC) was nearly double in women with benign breast disease (BBD) diagnosed by percutaneous biopsies.
Major finding: Patients with BBD vs the general population were at a significantly higher risk for overall BC (standard incidence ratio [SIR] 1.95; 95% CI 1.76-2.17), including invasive BC (SIR 1.56; 95% CI 1.37-1.78) and ductal carcinoma in situ (SIR 3.10; 95% CI 2.54-3.77). The SIR for overall BC increased progressively with increasing BBD severity (nonproliferative 1.42; 95% CI 1.19-1.71; proliferative disease without atypia 2.19; 95% CI 1.88-2.54; atypical hyperplasia 3.91; 95% CI 2.97-5.14).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4819 female patients who underwent a BBD biopsy, of whom 338 patients had incident BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Four authors declared receiving grants, research support, or personal fees from NIH and other sources.
Source: Sherman ME et al. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk in the percutaneous biopsy era. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 13). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6382
Key clinical point: Compared with the general population, the risk for overall breast cancer (BC) was nearly double in women with benign breast disease (BBD) diagnosed by percutaneous biopsies.
Major finding: Patients with BBD vs the general population were at a significantly higher risk for overall BC (standard incidence ratio [SIR] 1.95; 95% CI 1.76-2.17), including invasive BC (SIR 1.56; 95% CI 1.37-1.78) and ductal carcinoma in situ (SIR 3.10; 95% CI 2.54-3.77). The SIR for overall BC increased progressively with increasing BBD severity (nonproliferative 1.42; 95% CI 1.19-1.71; proliferative disease without atypia 2.19; 95% CI 1.88-2.54; atypical hyperplasia 3.91; 95% CI 2.97-5.14).
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4819 female patients who underwent a BBD biopsy, of whom 338 patients had incident BC.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Four authors declared receiving grants, research support, or personal fees from NIH and other sources.
Source: Sherman ME et al. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk in the percutaneous biopsy era. JAMA Surg. 2023 (Dec 13). doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6382
Coffee, COVID, and the Universal Antimicrobial
A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.
The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.
I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.
The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”
Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.
Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.
Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.
You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.
It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.
I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.
Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.
The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.
I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.
The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”
Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.
Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.
Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.
You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.
It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.
I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.
Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.
The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.
I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.
The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”
Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.
Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.
Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.
You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.
It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.
I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.
Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.
Introduction: The Many Lanes of Research on Magnesium Sulfate
The research that improves human health in the most expedient and most impactful ways is multitiered, with basic or fundamental research, translational research, interventional studies, and retrospective research often occurring simultaneously. There should be no “single lane” of research and one type of research does not preclude the other.
Too often, we fall short in one of these lanes. While we have achieved many moonshots in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine, we have tended not to place a high priority on basic research, which can provide a strong understanding of the biology of major diseases and conditions affecting women and their offspring. When conducted with proper commitment and funding, such research can lead to biologically directed therapy.
Within our specialty, research on how we can effectively prevent preterm birth, prematurity, and preeclampsia has taken a long road, with various types of therapies being tried, but none being overwhelmingly effective — with an ongoing need for more basic or fundamental research. Nevertheless, we can benefit and gain great insights from retrospective and interventional studies associated with clinical therapies used to treat premature labor and preeclampsia when these therapies have an unanticipated and important secondary benefit.
This month our Master Class is focused on the neuroprotection of prematurity. Magnesium sulfate is a valuable tool for the treatment of both premature labor and preeclampsia, and more recently, also for neuroprotection of the fetus. Interestingly, this use stemmed from researchers looking retrospectively at outcomes in women who received the compound for other reasons. It took many years for researchers to prove its neuroprotective value through interventional trials, while researchers simultaneously strove to understand on a basic biologic level how magnesium sulfate works to prevent outcomes such as cerebral palsy.
Basic research underway today continues to improve our understanding of its precise mechanisms of action. Combined with other tiers of research — including more interventional studies and more translational research — we can improve its utility for the neuroprotection of prematurity. Alternatively, ongoing research may lead to different, even more effective treatments.
Our guest author is Irina Burd, MD, PhD, Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.* Dr. Burd is also a physician-scientist. She recounts the important story of magnesium sulfate and what is currently known about its biologic plausibility in neuroprotection — including through her own studies – as well as what may be coming in the future.
E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].
Magnesium Sulfate for Fetal Neuroprotection in Preterm Birth
Without a doubt, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) given before anticipated preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy. It is a valuable tool for fetal neuroprotection at a time when there are no proven alternatives. Yet without the persistent research that occurred over more than 20 years, it may not have won the endorsement of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in 2010 and worked its way into routine practice.
Its history is worthy of reflection. It took years of observational trials (not all of which showed neuroprotective effects), six randomized controlled trials (none of which met their primary endpoint), three meta-analyses, and a Cochrane Database Systematic Review to arrive at the conclusion that antenatal magnesium sulfate therapy given to women at risk of preterm birth has definitive neuroprotective benefit.
This history also holds lessons for our specialty given the dearth of drugs approved for use in pregnancy and the recent withdrawal from the market of Makena — one of only nine drugs to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy — after a second trial showed lack of benefit in preventing recurrent preterm birth. The story of MgSO4 tells us it’s acceptable to have major stumbling blocks: At one point, MgSO4 was considered to be not only not helpful, but harmful, causing neonatal death. Further research disproved this initial finding.
Moreover, the MgSO4 story is one that remains unfinished, as my laboratory and other researchers work to better understand its biologic plausibility and to discover additional neuroprotective agents for anticipated preterm birth that may further reduce the risk of cerebral palsy. This leading cause of chronic childhood disability is estimated by the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation to affect approximately 800,000 people in the United States.
Origins and Biologic Plausibility
The MgSO4 story is rooted in the late seventeenth century discovery by physician Nehemiah Grew that the compound was the key component of the then-famous medicinal spring waters in Epsom, England.1 MgSO4 was first used for eclampsia in 1906,2 and was first reported in the American literature for eclampsia in 1925.3 In 1959, its effect as a tocolytic agent was reported.4
More than 30 years later, in 1995, an observational study coauthored by Karin B. Nelson, MD, and Judith K. Grether, PhD of the National Institutes of Health, showed a reduced risk of cerebral palsy in very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBW).5 The report marked a turning point in research interest on neuroprotection for anticipated preterm birth.
The precise molecular mechanisms of action of MgSO4 for neuroprotection are still not well understood. However, research findings from the University of Maryland and other institutions have provided biologic plausibility for its use to prevent cerebral palsy. Our current thinking is that it involves the prevention of periventricular white matter injury and/or the prevention of oxidative stress and a neuronal injury mechanism called excitotoxicity.
Periventricular white matter injury involving injury to preoligodendrocytes before 32 weeks’ gestation is the most prevalent injury seen in cerebral palsy; preoligodendrocytes are precursors of myelinating oligodendrocytes, which constitute a major glial population in the white matter. Our research in a mouse model demonstrated that the intrauterine inflammation frequently associated with preterm birth can lead to neuronal injury as well as white matter damage, and that MgSO4 may ameliorate both.6,7
Excitotoxicity results from excessive stimulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors on preoligodendrocytes and a rush of calcium through the voltage-gated channels. This calcium influx leads to the production of nitric oxide, oxidative stress, and subsequent mitochondrial damage and cell death. As a bivalent ion, MgSO4 sits in the voltage-gated channels of the NMDA receptors and reduces glutamatergic signaling, thus serving as a calcium antagonist and modulating calcium influx (See Figure).
In vitro research in our laboratory has also shown that MgSO4 may dampen inflammatory reactions driven by intrauterine infections, which, like preterm birth, increase the risk of cerebral palsy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.8 MgSO4 appears to do so by blocking the voltage-gated P2X7 receptor in umbilical vein endothelial cells, thus blocking endothelial secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)–1beta. Much more research is needed to determine whether MgSO4 could help prevent cerebral palsy through this mechanism.
The Long Route of Research
The 1995 Nelson-Grether study compared VLBW (< 1500 g) infants who survived and developed moderate/severe cerebral palsy within 3 years to randomly selected VLBW controls with respect to whether their mothers had received MgSO4 to prevent seizures in preeclampsia or as a tocolytic agent.5 In a population of more than 155,000 children born between 1983 and 1985, in utero exposure to MgSO4 was reported in 7.1% of 42 VLBW infants with cerebral palsy and 36% of 75 VLBW controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.51). In women without preeclampsia the OR increased to 0.25.
This motivating study had been preceded by several observational studies showing that infants born to women with preeclampsia who received MgSO4 had significantly lower risks of developing intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and germinal matrix hemorrhage (GMH). In one of these studies, published in 1992, Karl C. Kuban, MD, and coauthors reported that “maternal receipt of magnesium sulfate was associated with diminished risk of GMH-IVH even in those babies born to mothers who apparently did not have preeclampsia.”9
In the several years following the 1995 Nelson-Grether study, several other case-control/observational studies were reported, with conflicting conclusions, and investigators around the world began designing and conducting needed randomized controlled trials.
The six published randomized controlled trials looking at MgSO4 and neuroprotection varied in their inclusion and exclusion criteria, their recruitment and enrollment style, the gestational ages for MgSO4 administration, loading and maintenance doses, how cerebral palsy or neuroprotection was assessed, and other factors (See Table for RCT characteristics and main outcomes).10-14 One of the trials aimed primarily at evaluating the efficacy of MgSO4 for preventing preeclampsia.
Again, none of the randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistical significance for their primary outcomes or concluded that there was a significant neuroprotective effect for cerebral palsy. Rather, most suggested benefit through secondary analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, research that proceeded after the first published randomized controlled trial — the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints (MAGnet) trial — was suspended early when an interim analysis showed a significantly increased risk of mortality in MgSO4-exposed fetuses. All told, it wasn’t until researchers obtained unpublished data and conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews that a significant effect of MgSO4 on cerebral palsy could be seen.
The three systematic reviews and the Cochrane review, each of which used slightly different methodologies, were published in rapid succession in 2009. One review calculated a relative risk of cerebral palsy of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91) — and a relative risk for the combined outcome of death and cerebral palsy at 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98) — when women at risk of preterm birth were given MgSO4.15 The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of cerebral palsy was 63, investigators determined, and the NNT to prevent one case of cerebral palsy or infant death was 44.
Another review estimated the NNT for prevention of one case of cerebral palsy at 52 when MgSO4 is given at less than 34 weeks’ gestation, and similarly concluded that MgSO4 is associated with a significantly “reduced risk of moderate/severe CP and substantial gross motor dysfunction without any statistically significant effect on the risk of total pediatric mortality.”16
A third review, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), estimated an NNT of 46 to prevent one case of cerebral palsy in infants exposed to MgSO4 before 30 weeks, and an NNT of 56 when exposure occurs before 32-34 weeks.17
The Cochrane Review, meanwhile, reported a relative reduction in the risk of cerebral palsy of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87) when antenatal MgSO4 is given at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, as well as a significant reduction in the rate of substantial gross motor dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85).18 The NNT to avoid one case of cerebral palsy, researchers reported, was 63.
Moving Forward
The NNTs calculated in these reviews — ranging from 44 to 63 — are convincing, and are comparable with evidence-based medicine data for prevention of other common diseases.19 For instance, the NNT for a life saved when aspirin is given immediately after a heart attack is 42. Statins given for 5 years in people with known heart disease have an NNT of 83 to save one life, an NNT of 39 to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, and an NNT of 125 to prevent one stroke. For oral anticoagulants used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for primary stroke prevention, the NNTs to prevent one stroke, and one death, are 22 and 42, respectively.19
In its 2010 Committee Opinion on Magnesium Sulfate Before Anticipated Preterm Birth for Neuroprotection (reaffirmed in 2020), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists left it to institutions to develop their own guidelines “regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, concurrent tocolysis, and monitoring in accordance with one of the larger trials.”20
Not surprisingly, most if not all hospitals have chosen a higher dose of MgSO4 administered up to 31 weeks’ gestation in keeping with the protocols employed in the NICHD-sponsored BEAM trial (See Table).
The hope moving forward is to expand treatment options for neuroprotection in cases of imminent preterm birth. Researchers have been assessing the ability of melatonin to provide neuroprotection in cases of growth restriction and neonatal asphyxia. Melatonin has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and is known to mediate neuronal generation and synaptic plasticity.21
N-acetyl-L-cysteine is another potential neuroprotective agent. It acts as an antioxidant, a precursor to glutathione, and a modulator of the glutamate system and has been studied as a neuroprotective agent in cases of maternal chorioamnionitis.21 Both melatonin and N-acetyl-L-cysteine are regarded as safe in pregnancy, but much more clinical study is needed to prove their neuroprotective potential when given shortly before birth or earlier.
Dr. Burd is the Sylvan Freiman, MD Endowed Professor and Chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Clio Med. 1984;19(1-2):1-21.
2. Medicinsk Rev. (Bergen) 1906;32:264-272.
3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(4):1390-1391.
4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78(1):27-32.
5. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):263-269.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):279.e1-279.e8.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):292.e1-292.e9.
8. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(3):463-471.
9. J Child Neurol. 1992;7(1):70-76.
10. Lancet. 1997;350:1517-1518.
11. JAMA. 2003;290:2669-2676.
12. BJOG. 2007;114(3):310-318.
13. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
14. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:895-905.
15. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(6):1327-1333.
16. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):595-609.
17. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:354-364.
18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21:(1):CD004661.
19. www.thennt.com.
20. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:669-671.
21. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2012;13:680899.
*This story was corrected on June 10, 2024.