Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Promoting to the front line two drugs normally used in rearguard action to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) – nivolumab (Opdivo) and cabozantinib (Cabometyx) – doubled overall response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) and significantly improved overall survival (OS), compared with first-line sunitinib (Sutent), investigators in the Checkmate 9ER trial reported.

Median PFS among patients with advanced RCC, which was the trial’s primary endpoint, was 16.6 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib, compared with 8.3 months with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.51 for the combination (P < .0001). The median follow-up was 18.1 months.

Median OS had not been reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff, but the survival curves at the time of the analysis clearly favored nivolumab-cabozatinib, with an HR for death of .060 (P = .0010), said Tony K. Choueri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“With expanding options in our patients with advanced RCC, the overall efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefit, as well as individual patient characteristics, are very important considerations when you select appropriate therapy,” he said in a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Although the nivolumab-cabozantinib combination therapy looks good, it’s late to the game, commented Dominik Berthold, MD, from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, the invited discussant for the briefing.

“The question is, what’s the only drawback of this trial? It’s probably the fact that it’s not first in class in this situation,” he said.

Dr. Berthold noted that nivolumab-cabozantinib, if approved for the frontline setting, will join the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib (Inlyta) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which, as previously reported, was associated with a nearly 50% reduction in the risk for death in the KEYNOTE-426 trial. This combination was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the frontline setting in April 2019.

As shown in the CheckMate-214 study, the combination of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab with the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) was associated with significantly higher objective response rates and OS rates compared with sunitinib. This combination was approved by the FDA in April 2018 as first-line therapy for patients with advanced intermediate- or poor-risk RCC.
 

CheckMate 9ER details

A total of 651 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic RCC that had a clear cell component in all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk groups were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib at 40 mg daily or oral sunitinib at 50 mg daily in cycles of 4 weeks on therapy/2 weeks off therapy. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities occurred.

The primary PFS endpoint and the secondary OS endpoint both favored the combination, as did the objective response rate, which was 55.7% with nivolumab-cabozantinib versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .0001).

Complete responses were seen in 8% of patients who received the combination versus 4.6% with the patients who received sunitinib. Partial responses were seen in 47.7% and 22.6%, respectively.

Patients generally tolerated the combination. The incidence of the most common high-grade treatment-emergent adverse events and other adverse events of any grade was similar to that seen with sunitinib, Dr. Choueri said.

The rates of treatment-related events that led to discontinuation was 3.1% among patients who received the combination, 5.6% among patients who received the nivolumab component only, and 6.6% among patients who received cabozantinib only. It was 8.8% among patients who received sunitinib. More than 50% of patients in the combination arm needed a dose reduction of nivolumab-cabozantinib because of adverse events, however.

“Overall, it seems that the combination has a somewhat manageable safety profile in patients with advanced RCC,” Dr. Choueri said.

Patient-reported quality of life, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 total score, was an exploratory endpoint. It was maintained over time with the combination but deteriorated over time with sunitinib, with statistically significant differences between the study arms at most time points to 91 weeks, he reported.
 

Making choices

Dr. Berthold acknowledged the benefit that having an additional therapy offers clinicians and patients.

“What we still need to learn here is, ‘Are there any patient populations who may benefit more on this combination compared with other combinations?’ ” he said. “Cabozantinib is quite a unique TKI which may target better bone metastases, for example, so I think there are things we need to learn from further data and longer follow-up.”

Camillo Porta, MD, from the University of Bari (Italy), the invited discussant for the presidential symposium, urged caution in comparing the three regimens, owing to differences in the drug used, study endpoints, baseline patient characteristics, and the distribution of patients among different prognostic groups.

When it comes to deciding between frontline regimens, “the only possible, though highly empiric, driver of our therapeutical choice should be the biological aggressiveness of the tumor,” he said.

For patients with highly aggressive disease, the use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)–directed TKI may help control disease long enough to give the checkpoint inhibitor time to work.

“Otherwise, one could head for the long-term benefit of the immune combo as well as for complete responses, trying to spare [patients] the additional toxicities deriving from the continuous use of the VEGFR TKI,” he added.

Dr. Porta noted that when considering the trade-off between efficacy and safety in the first-line setting, many patients are willing to accept more toxicities in exchange for clinical benefit.

The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueri disclosed consultancy fees, advisory board activity, manuscript preparation, travel/lodging, honoraria, and grants for clinical trials from BMS and others. Dr. Berthold disclosed an advisory role for Ipsen, BMS, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Porta disclosed advisory/consulting activities and speakers bureau participation for BMS and others.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Promoting to the front line two drugs normally used in rearguard action to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) – nivolumab (Opdivo) and cabozantinib (Cabometyx) – doubled overall response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) and significantly improved overall survival (OS), compared with first-line sunitinib (Sutent), investigators in the Checkmate 9ER trial reported.

Median PFS among patients with advanced RCC, which was the trial’s primary endpoint, was 16.6 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib, compared with 8.3 months with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.51 for the combination (P < .0001). The median follow-up was 18.1 months.

Median OS had not been reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff, but the survival curves at the time of the analysis clearly favored nivolumab-cabozatinib, with an HR for death of .060 (P = .0010), said Tony K. Choueri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“With expanding options in our patients with advanced RCC, the overall efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefit, as well as individual patient characteristics, are very important considerations when you select appropriate therapy,” he said in a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Although the nivolumab-cabozantinib combination therapy looks good, it’s late to the game, commented Dominik Berthold, MD, from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, the invited discussant for the briefing.

“The question is, what’s the only drawback of this trial? It’s probably the fact that it’s not first in class in this situation,” he said.

Dr. Berthold noted that nivolumab-cabozantinib, if approved for the frontline setting, will join the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib (Inlyta) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which, as previously reported, was associated with a nearly 50% reduction in the risk for death in the KEYNOTE-426 trial. This combination was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the frontline setting in April 2019.

As shown in the CheckMate-214 study, the combination of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab with the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) was associated with significantly higher objective response rates and OS rates compared with sunitinib. This combination was approved by the FDA in April 2018 as first-line therapy for patients with advanced intermediate- or poor-risk RCC.
 

CheckMate 9ER details

A total of 651 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic RCC that had a clear cell component in all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk groups were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib at 40 mg daily or oral sunitinib at 50 mg daily in cycles of 4 weeks on therapy/2 weeks off therapy. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities occurred.

The primary PFS endpoint and the secondary OS endpoint both favored the combination, as did the objective response rate, which was 55.7% with nivolumab-cabozantinib versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .0001).

Complete responses were seen in 8% of patients who received the combination versus 4.6% with the patients who received sunitinib. Partial responses were seen in 47.7% and 22.6%, respectively.

Patients generally tolerated the combination. The incidence of the most common high-grade treatment-emergent adverse events and other adverse events of any grade was similar to that seen with sunitinib, Dr. Choueri said.

The rates of treatment-related events that led to discontinuation was 3.1% among patients who received the combination, 5.6% among patients who received the nivolumab component only, and 6.6% among patients who received cabozantinib only. It was 8.8% among patients who received sunitinib. More than 50% of patients in the combination arm needed a dose reduction of nivolumab-cabozantinib because of adverse events, however.

“Overall, it seems that the combination has a somewhat manageable safety profile in patients with advanced RCC,” Dr. Choueri said.

Patient-reported quality of life, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 total score, was an exploratory endpoint. It was maintained over time with the combination but deteriorated over time with sunitinib, with statistically significant differences between the study arms at most time points to 91 weeks, he reported.
 

Making choices

Dr. Berthold acknowledged the benefit that having an additional therapy offers clinicians and patients.

“What we still need to learn here is, ‘Are there any patient populations who may benefit more on this combination compared with other combinations?’ ” he said. “Cabozantinib is quite a unique TKI which may target better bone metastases, for example, so I think there are things we need to learn from further data and longer follow-up.”

Camillo Porta, MD, from the University of Bari (Italy), the invited discussant for the presidential symposium, urged caution in comparing the three regimens, owing to differences in the drug used, study endpoints, baseline patient characteristics, and the distribution of patients among different prognostic groups.

When it comes to deciding between frontline regimens, “the only possible, though highly empiric, driver of our therapeutical choice should be the biological aggressiveness of the tumor,” he said.

For patients with highly aggressive disease, the use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)–directed TKI may help control disease long enough to give the checkpoint inhibitor time to work.

“Otherwise, one could head for the long-term benefit of the immune combo as well as for complete responses, trying to spare [patients] the additional toxicities deriving from the continuous use of the VEGFR TKI,” he added.

Dr. Porta noted that when considering the trade-off between efficacy and safety in the first-line setting, many patients are willing to accept more toxicities in exchange for clinical benefit.

The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueri disclosed consultancy fees, advisory board activity, manuscript preparation, travel/lodging, honoraria, and grants for clinical trials from BMS and others. Dr. Berthold disclosed an advisory role for Ipsen, BMS, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Porta disclosed advisory/consulting activities and speakers bureau participation for BMS and others.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Promoting to the front line two drugs normally used in rearguard action to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) – nivolumab (Opdivo) and cabozantinib (Cabometyx) – doubled overall response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) and significantly improved overall survival (OS), compared with first-line sunitinib (Sutent), investigators in the Checkmate 9ER trial reported.

Median PFS among patients with advanced RCC, which was the trial’s primary endpoint, was 16.6 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib, compared with 8.3 months with sunitinib, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.51 for the combination (P < .0001). The median follow-up was 18.1 months.

Median OS had not been reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff, but the survival curves at the time of the analysis clearly favored nivolumab-cabozatinib, with an HR for death of .060 (P = .0010), said Tony K. Choueri, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“With expanding options in our patients with advanced RCC, the overall efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefit, as well as individual patient characteristics, are very important considerations when you select appropriate therapy,” he said in a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Although the nivolumab-cabozantinib combination therapy looks good, it’s late to the game, commented Dominik Berthold, MD, from the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, the invited discussant for the briefing.

“The question is, what’s the only drawback of this trial? It’s probably the fact that it’s not first in class in this situation,” he said.

Dr. Berthold noted that nivolumab-cabozantinib, if approved for the frontline setting, will join the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib (Inlyta) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which, as previously reported, was associated with a nearly 50% reduction in the risk for death in the KEYNOTE-426 trial. This combination was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the frontline setting in April 2019.

As shown in the CheckMate-214 study, the combination of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab with the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) was associated with significantly higher objective response rates and OS rates compared with sunitinib. This combination was approved by the FDA in April 2018 as first-line therapy for patients with advanced intermediate- or poor-risk RCC.
 

CheckMate 9ER details

A total of 651 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic RCC that had a clear cell component in all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk groups were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib at 40 mg daily or oral sunitinib at 50 mg daily in cycles of 4 weeks on therapy/2 weeks off therapy. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities occurred.

The primary PFS endpoint and the secondary OS endpoint both favored the combination, as did the objective response rate, which was 55.7% with nivolumab-cabozantinib versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .0001).

Complete responses were seen in 8% of patients who received the combination versus 4.6% with the patients who received sunitinib. Partial responses were seen in 47.7% and 22.6%, respectively.

Patients generally tolerated the combination. The incidence of the most common high-grade treatment-emergent adverse events and other adverse events of any grade was similar to that seen with sunitinib, Dr. Choueri said.

The rates of treatment-related events that led to discontinuation was 3.1% among patients who received the combination, 5.6% among patients who received the nivolumab component only, and 6.6% among patients who received cabozantinib only. It was 8.8% among patients who received sunitinib. More than 50% of patients in the combination arm needed a dose reduction of nivolumab-cabozantinib because of adverse events, however.

“Overall, it seems that the combination has a somewhat manageable safety profile in patients with advanced RCC,” Dr. Choueri said.

Patient-reported quality of life, as measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index 19 total score, was an exploratory endpoint. It was maintained over time with the combination but deteriorated over time with sunitinib, with statistically significant differences between the study arms at most time points to 91 weeks, he reported.
 

Making choices

Dr. Berthold acknowledged the benefit that having an additional therapy offers clinicians and patients.

“What we still need to learn here is, ‘Are there any patient populations who may benefit more on this combination compared with other combinations?’ ” he said. “Cabozantinib is quite a unique TKI which may target better bone metastases, for example, so I think there are things we need to learn from further data and longer follow-up.”

Camillo Porta, MD, from the University of Bari (Italy), the invited discussant for the presidential symposium, urged caution in comparing the three regimens, owing to differences in the drug used, study endpoints, baseline patient characteristics, and the distribution of patients among different prognostic groups.

When it comes to deciding between frontline regimens, “the only possible, though highly empiric, driver of our therapeutical choice should be the biological aggressiveness of the tumor,” he said.

For patients with highly aggressive disease, the use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)–directed TKI may help control disease long enough to give the checkpoint inhibitor time to work.

“Otherwise, one could head for the long-term benefit of the immune combo as well as for complete responses, trying to spare [patients] the additional toxicities deriving from the continuous use of the VEGFR TKI,” he added.

Dr. Porta noted that when considering the trade-off between efficacy and safety in the first-line setting, many patients are willing to accept more toxicities in exchange for clinical benefit.

The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueri disclosed consultancy fees, advisory board activity, manuscript preparation, travel/lodging, honoraria, and grants for clinical trials from BMS and others. Dr. Berthold disclosed an advisory role for Ipsen, BMS, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Porta disclosed advisory/consulting activities and speakers bureau participation for BMS and others.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG, Trodelvy) significantly extends both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, according to phase 3 trial data.

The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).

The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).

The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.

Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.

“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.

She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
 

Objections to study design and execution

Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.

“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.

“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.

Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.

She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”

On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
 

Safety and a focus on diarrhea

Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.

The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.

Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.

On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.

Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”

In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.

The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.

All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.

By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).

Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.

With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).

Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.

Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”

The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.

This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.

“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.

He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”

The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG, Trodelvy) significantly extends both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, according to phase 3 trial data.

The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).

The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).

The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.

Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.

“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.

She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
 

Objections to study design and execution

Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.

“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.

“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.

Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.

She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”

On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
 

Safety and a focus on diarrhea

Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.

The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.

Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.

On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.

Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”

In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.

The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.

All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.

By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).

Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.

With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).

Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.

Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”

The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.

This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.

“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.

He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”

The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG, Trodelvy) significantly extends both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, according to phase 3 trial data.

The first-in-class drug is directed at trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is highly expressed in breast cancer. Research on the drug was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

ASCENT randomly assigned more than 500 patients who had metastatic TNBC and who had experienced disease progression after a median of four lines of therapy to receive either SG or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. SG significantly improved median progression-free survival (5.6 vs 1.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; P < .0001) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.48; P < .0001).

The response rate was 35% for SG vs 5% for chemotherapy (P < .0001).

The study was presented by Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

He said that because the safety profile of SG is consistent with previous reports and the treatment discontinuation rate was low, the clinical benefit “confirms the use of sacituzumab govitecan” in metastatic TNBC. This was a reference to the fact that the drug previously received accelerated approval on the basis of early data.

Bardia added that ongoing studies are evaluating the use of SG in earlier lines of therapy, including neoadjuvant settings in combination with other targeted agents, as well as in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. One such study is the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study, which is actively accruing patients.

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal, said the treatment algorithm for the management of TNBC will need to be updated in light of these results.

“In my opinion, we should now add sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients treated with two or more lines of therapy,” she said.

She noted that the study design raised some questions over the way such trials should be conducted and the future sequencing of treatments.
 

Objections to study design and execution

Discussant Cardoso said the choice of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint for the trial was not ideal.

“In the metastatic setting, and particularly for triple-negative breast cancer, where the median survival is quite low and where each line of treatment, particularly after the second line, has a short duration, the primary endpoint should have been overall survival,” she commented.

“Luckily, we saw some results, but we could have missed it,” Cardoso said. She made “a plea to make sure that overall survival is at least the co–primary endpoint” in the future.

Cardoso also said it was not clear to her why the trial had to be stopped. “For the current patients, if there is no crossover, there is no benefit in stopping the trial,” she said.

She went on: “For future patients, it’s better to have the final results sufficiently powered.” She noted that the benefit seen in ASCENT was “moderate” and “so not a substantial breakthrough.” She added that it was “important not to stop trials too early.”

On the positive side, Cardoso said the median number of previous lines of therapy was “quite remarkable for this subtype, and it is important then for us to discuss sequencing,” particularly given that so many patients received checkpoint inhibitors before entering the trial.
 

Safety and a focus on diarrhea

Investigator Bardia explained that SG is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer.

The antibody is linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a hydrolyzable linker that makes internalization and enzymatic cleavage by tumor cells unnecessary.

Hydrolysis of the linker releases SN-38 both within the tumor cell and extracellularly to induce a so-called bystander effect, in which neighboring tumors cells may be killed even if they do not express Trop-2.

On the basis of positive results from phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with metastatic TNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

ASCENT was therefore a phase 3 confirmatory study. Patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or to receive physician’s choice of treatment.

Physicians could choose eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

The patients continued receiving treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. On the unanimous recommendation of the data safety monitoring committee, the trial was ended early because of “compelling evidence of efficacy.”

In all, 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive SG. Of those patients, 15 remain on treatment. Treatment was discontinued for 199 patients who experienced disease progression. In the control arm, 262 patients were included, none of whom are still on treatment; 166 discontinued because of disease progression.

The current analysis is limited to 235 patients in the SG group and, in the control arm, 233 patients who did not have brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases will be the subject of a later analysis.

All but one patient in both treatment groups were women. The median age was approximately 54 years. The median number of prior treatment regimens was four. All patients had previously received chemotherapy, and between 26% and 29% have taken checkpoint inhibitors.

By the data cutoff of March 11, 2020, patients had received a median of seven treatment cycles with SG. Progression-free survival was adjudicated by blind, independent central review. The median duration of response was of borderline significance, at 6.3 months vs 3.6 months (P = .057).

Bardia showed that the results were consistent among all subgroups, including subgroups determined on the basis of age, number of prior therapies, whether patients had received prior immune checkpoint therapy, and the presence of liver metastases.

With respect to safety, the important grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (seen in 51% of SG patients vs 33% of patients in the control arm), diarrhea (10% vs <1%), leukopenia (10% vs 5%), anemia (8% vs 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% vs 2%).

Despite the fact that the adverse event rate was higher with SG than with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the percentage of such events that led to treatment discontinuation was numerically lower, at 4.7% vs 5.4%.

Cardoso highlighted the “substantial percentage” of patients with diarrhea and nausea in the trial and noted that “all grades” of these adverse events “affect quality of life.”

The focus therefore should be on patient education, prophylaxis, and “the early management of side effects,” she said.

This point was taken up in the postpresentation debate. Bardia said the high rate of diarrhea “likely relates to the toxic payload, which is SN-38, which is known to cause diarrhea.

“Loperamide or immodium prophylaxis can be used in patients who receive this drug, and in general, our experience with the use of sacituzumab govitecan is you can control the diarrhea,” Bardia said.

He added: “There is also a different side effect that occurs during the infusion of SG, which is abdominal cramping and diarrhea, and that’s more of a cholinergic reaction. For that, atropine is the best medication to use.”

The study was funded by Immunomedics Inc. Bardia has disclosed financial ties with Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Cardoso has disclosed financial ties to multiple drug companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.

The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Omnivore’s dilemma’

A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.

“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.

“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.

On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.

Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.

The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.

Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
 

Key components

The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.

The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”

The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.

They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.

Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.

Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
 

Window of time

In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.

When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.

However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
 

‘Let food be thy medicine’

Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.

“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.

Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.

Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.

Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.

“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.

No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.

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

A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.

The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Omnivore’s dilemma’

A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.

“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.

“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.

On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.

Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.

The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.

Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
 

Key components

The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.

The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”

The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.

They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.

Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.

Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
 

Window of time

In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.

When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.

However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
 

‘Let food be thy medicine’

Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.

“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.

Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.

Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.

Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.

“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.

No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.

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

A Pesco-Mediterranean diet consisting of plants, legumes, nuts, whole grains, extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), moderate amounts of dairy products, and fish and/or seafood, together with intermittent fasting (also called time-restricted eating), can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new review.

The authors presented the research and conceptual underpinnings of this approach, which “proposes that following a Pesco-Mediterranean diet with time-restricted eating is evidence-based and ideal for reducing cardiovascular risk,” study coauthor Sarah Smith, PhD, RN, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

The review was published online September 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Omnivore’s dilemma’

A host of epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials support an association between the traditional Mediterranean diet and lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse outcome. The diet has been subsequently endorsed by several sets of guidelines, including those from the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology primary prevention guidelines.

“Although humans are omnivores and can subsist on a myriad of foods, the ideal diet for health remains a dilemma for many people,” lead author James H. O’Keefe, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s, said in a news release.

“Plant-rich diets reduce CVD risk; however, veganism is difficult to follow and can result in important nutrient deficiencies,” he stated.

On the other hand, “the standard American diet is high in red meat, especially processed meat from animals raised in inhumane conditions, fed unnatural foods, and often treated with hormones and antibiotics,” the authors pointed out.

Together with overconsumption of red meat, sugar and processed food contribute to poor health outcomes, Dr. Smith noted.

The review was designed to present the Pesco-Mediterranean diet as “a solution to the ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ about what to eat,” said Dr. O’Keefe.

Study coauthor Ibrahim M. Saeed, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s, added that the research “attempts to emphasize the results of landmark prospective trials that highlight good, healthy eating options rather than just [foods that people would] want to avoid.”
 

Key components

The traditional Mediterranean diet includes “unrestricted use of EVOO,” but the quality of the olive oil is “crucial” and it must be unrefined and cold pressed, the authors emphasized.

The “highly bioactive” polyphenols likely “underlie EVOO’s numerous cardiometabolic benefits,” the researchers wrote, noting that the 2014 PREDIMED trial provided “first-level scientific evidence of [EVOO’s] cardioprotective effects [if used] within the context of the Mediterranean diet.”

The authors recommend “generous use” of EVOO in salad dressings and vegetable dishes, pasta, rice, fish, sauces, or legumes.

They also review the role of tree nuts, noting that they are “nutrient-dense foods rich in unsaturated fats, fiber, protein, polyphenols, phytosterols, tocopherols, and nonsodium minerals” and have been shown beneficial in CVD prevention.

Legumes play a “central role” in the Mediterranean diet and are an “excellent source” of vegetable protein, folate, magnesium, and fiber. Legume consumption is associated with lowered risk for CVD, as well as improved blood glucose, cholesterol, blood pressure, and body weight, the authors stated.

Whole grains like barley, whole oats, brown rice, and quinoa are likewise central components of the traditional Mediterranean diet. The authors warned that refined grain products and commercial precooked pasta or pizza should be “consumed only in small amounts.”
 

Window of time

In time-restricted eating (which is one type of intermittent fasting), the daily intake of food is limited to a window of time, usually 6-12 hours each day, the authors explained.

When done regularly, this type of eating has been shown to both decrease intra-abdominal adipose tissue and reduce free-radical production. Additionally, it “elicits powerful cellular responses” that may reduce risks for systemic inflammation, diabetes, CVD, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.

However, the authors warned, the evidence supporting time-restricted eating is still preliminary.
 

‘Let food be thy medicine’

Andrew Freeman, MD, cochair of the ACC’s nutrition & lifestyle work group, cautioned that many American plant-based Mediterranean diets often include large amount of feta cheese and lamb and foods are often “heavily doused” in olive oil, while the traditional Mediterranean diet consists primarily of greens and lentils and is plant based.

“The goal would be to have a whole grain and leafy vegetables as the center of the meal, and – if an animal product such as fish is included – it should be limited to as little as possible and used as the garnish rather than the main dish,” he stated.

Moreover, fish are often exposed to large amount of toxins, heavy metals, and microplastics, so “don’t overdo eating fish,” he advised.

Dr. Freeman said that intermittent fasting “has a lot of promise and no harm” and concentrating food consumption during a shorter period in the day instead of “grazing throughout the day” will reduce constant snacking. “But don’t gorge yourself during those hours,” he warned.

Dr. Freeman concluded by citing the guidance of Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.

“There’s some real truth to that,” he added.

No source of funding was listed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Freeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Keefe has a major ownership interest in CardioTabs, a supplement company that sells some products containing omega-3 fatty acids.

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

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.