The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

The first KRAS inhibitor approved for the treatment of lung cancer provided a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in an updated analysis of a phase 2 study.

Treatment with sotorasib yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to an analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in this update, which included a median follow-up of more than 15 months, according to investigator Ferdinandos Skoulidis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Efficacy responses

The confirmed objective response rate was 37.1%, including a 3.2% complete response rate and a median duration of response of 11.1 months, according to the report by Dr. Skoulidis.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of sotorasib was consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Skoulidis said in his presentation (Abstract 9003).

In particular, efficacy was observed in subgroups with co-occurring mutations in TP53, STK11, and KEAP1, which are molecular indicators of suboptimal outcomes on standard systemic treatments, according to Dr. Skoulidis.

This update on the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK100 trial, published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine , came just one week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to sotorasib.

Sotorasib was approved for the treatment of patients with previously treated KRAS G12C‑mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC on the basis of previously reported results from CodeBreaK100.

This sotorasib indication represents a “historic milestone,” Dr. Skoulidis said in an interview.

No previously studied selective KRAS inhibitor has been approved despite scientific research efforts that stretch back nearly four decades, he explained.

“In a way, one can say that we have dealt KRAS-mutant lung cancer a knockdown blow, however, I should point out that the fight is not over,” he added.

“These clinical results will no doubt spearhead and galvanize further efforts to develop even more effective therapeutic combinations in the future, as well as identify and either forestall or overcome the eventual development of acquired resistance,” he said.
 

Only 1 out of 8 patients

The KRAS p.G12C mutation is present in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas, or about one in every eight patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Skoulidis said in the interview.

“We are estimating that this is in the region of 13,000 patients newly diagnosed every year in the U.S., and approximately 13,000 patients or so that are currently being treated in the second- or third-line setting,” he said.

The CodeBreaK100 trial included 126 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and KRAS p.G12C mutation who had progressed on prior systemic therapies. About 43% had one prior line of treatment, while 35% had two lines, and 22% had three lines. A total of 81% had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibitors.

Most treatment-related adverse events in the study were grade 1-2 and generally manageable, according to Dr. Skoulidis. About 20% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly diarrhea or increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels. A grade 4 treatment-related adverse event, pneumonitis and dyspnea, was reported in one patient or approximately 1%.
 

Confirmatory trial

Although CodeBreak100 is not a randomized trial, the median OS of 12.5 months compares favorably to median OS times in the range of 7.9-10.3 months reported in randomized phase 3 clinical trials and subgroup analysis of randomized phase 3 trials of docetaxel for patients with KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, Dr. Skoulidis said in a question-and-answer session.

A confirmatory phase 3 CodeBreaK200 trial of sotorasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC is underway. That trial is evaluating PFS as a primary endpoint and OS as a secondary endpoint.

“If the same magnitude of benefit, 12.5 months median overall survival, is confirmed in the larger phase 3 clinical trial, as a clinician I would consider that beneficial for patients, compared to the standard of care,” Dr. Skoulidis said during the session.
 

Mature data

The updated analysis of the phase 2 CodeBreaK100 study is notable for its mature OS data, updated safety and the first molecular subgroup analyses, according to discussant Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“The objective response rate was 37.1%,” she added. “This is a little bit lower than we’re used to for targeted therapies, but remember, this is a different mutation and a very different class of drugs.”

The KRAS G12C inhibitors, several of which are under clinical development, are not tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but rather allele-specific inhibitors that target mutant KRAS, trapping it in an inactive conformation, she explained.

Dr. Lovly referenced the exploratory analyses demonstrating efficacy in molecularly defined subgroups, calling it “interesting” that there was no difference in objective response rate between TP53 wild type and mutant tumors.

“We do have data that mutant TP53 seems to confer inferior outcomes for EGFR TKI-directed therapy in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer,” she said.

CodeBreaK100 was supported by Amgen, Inc. and partly by a National Institutes of Health Cancer Center Support Grant at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Skoulidis reported honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb; research funding from AIMM Therapeutics and Amgen; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Tango Therapeutics. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

Lung cancer patients treated in community practices are not being comprehensively tested for biomarkers that could guide choice of first-line therapy, a recent retrospective analysis shows.

Less than half of patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a network of community practices underwent testing for all five biomarkers evaluated in the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9004).

Almost all of the 3,474 patients in the study (90%) had been tested for at least one biomarker, according to investigator Makenzi Colleen Evangelist, MD, an oncologist with New York Oncology Hematology, a practice in the US Oncology Network.

Only 46% were tested for all five biomarkers—ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1, and PD-L1.

“While the proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers increased over time, testing rates remain low at approximately 50%,” Dr. Evangelist said in a presentation of the results at the meeting.

This gap in testing illustrates “significant implementation challenges” that exist despite tremendous advances in biomarker-driven drug development and the technology to detect the mutations that can guide therapy, said Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the study. “I would strongly argue that we have to apply what we already have to get equity, while still pushing the science forward,” said Dr. Lovly of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“We don’t want to miss the low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Lovly said. “We have to be able to make sure every patient with an EGFR mutation gets an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and so forth, for all the other biomarkers that we test for.”
 

Real-world testing

The retrospective analysis of real-world biomarker testing patterns presented by Dr. Evangelist is the first of three protocols in the MYLUNG Consortium, a collaborative research study being conducted over a five-year period, according to the US Oncology Network.

The review of electronic health records included patients with metastatic NSCLC starting first-line systemic therapy between April 2018 and March 2020 in the US Oncology Network of community practices.

Rates of biomarker testing were highest for PD-L1, which was done for 83% of patients, the data show. EGFR and ALK testing were performed in 70% of patients, while ROS1 was evaluated in 68%. BRAF testing was done in 55% of patients. Testing rates appeared to be numerically higher for lung cancers with nonsquamous histology, according to Dr. Evangelist.

Over time, rates of specific biomarker testing were essentially unchanged, though a significant difference was seen for BRAF testing over time. BRAF was evaluated in 54% of patients starting therapy from April 2018 through September 2018, and 59%-62% in subsequent time periods (P = .005).

The proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers was 44% in the April-September 2018 time period, and 50%-53% in subsequent time periods, the data show (P = .0056).

The proportion of patients tested with next-generation sequencing rose from 33% to 45% between 2018 and 2020, suggesting that comprehensive testing is increasing, according to Dr. Evangelist.

The turnaround time from testing orders to results was approximately 2 weeks, underscoring a need to get test results to oncologists sooner so they can consider biomarker data as they develop a treatment plan, the US Oncology Network said in a press release that described the study.

Median time from diagnosis to treatment in the study was approximately 5 weeks, which is “a concern for patients anxiously waiting for treatment,” the press release said.
 

Raising awareness

This study should serve to raise awareness that not all NSCLC patients who should be tested are being tested, study co-author Nicholas Robert, MD, said in an interview.

“There is a great line – ‘right drug, right patient, right time’ – and we’re not meeting that,” said Dr. Robert, vice president of medical affairs for Ontada, an oncology insights and technology company that is part of McKesson, which acquired the US Oncology Network in 2010.

The hope is that general oncologists will begin thinking of biomarker testing in NSCLC as being essential in the same way hormone receptor and HER2 testing are in breast cancer, according to Dr. Robert.

“You would never think about treating anyone with breast cancer without those variables,” he said. “We’d like to think that the general oncologist feels the same way about biomarkers in non-small cell cancer, that it’s something that should be done routinely across the board.”

The next phase of the MYLUNG Consortium study will prospectively evaluate biomarker test-ordering practices, turnaround times, and treatment decision making in approximately 1,000 patients from 11 sites, while the final phase will evaluate interventions to improve biomarker testing and access to therapies in up to 7,500 patients at 20 sites, according to the US Oncology Network.

Dr. Evangelist reported a consulting or advisory role with Takeda and AstraZeneca. Dr. Robert reported employment, leadership, and stock/ownership interest disclosures related to McKesson, along with other disclosures related to Johnson & Johnson, Oncolytics Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Advi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and New Century Health. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

Lung cancer patients treated in community practices are not being comprehensively tested for biomarkers that could guide choice of first-line therapy, a recent retrospective analysis shows.

Less than half of patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a network of community practices underwent testing for all five biomarkers evaluated in the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9004).

Almost all of the 3,474 patients in the study (90%) had been tested for at least one biomarker, according to investigator Makenzi Colleen Evangelist, MD, an oncologist with New York Oncology Hematology, a practice in the US Oncology Network.

Only 46% were tested for all five biomarkers—ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1, and PD-L1.

“While the proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers increased over time, testing rates remain low at approximately 50%,” Dr. Evangelist said in a presentation of the results at the meeting.

This gap in testing illustrates “significant implementation challenges” that exist despite tremendous advances in biomarker-driven drug development and the technology to detect the mutations that can guide therapy, said Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the study. “I would strongly argue that we have to apply what we already have to get equity, while still pushing the science forward,” said Dr. Lovly of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“We don’t want to miss the low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Lovly said. “We have to be able to make sure every patient with an EGFR mutation gets an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and so forth, for all the other biomarkers that we test for.”
 

Real-world testing

The retrospective analysis of real-world biomarker testing patterns presented by Dr. Evangelist is the first of three protocols in the MYLUNG Consortium, a collaborative research study being conducted over a five-year period, according to the US Oncology Network.

The review of electronic health records included patients with metastatic NSCLC starting first-line systemic therapy between April 2018 and March 2020 in the US Oncology Network of community practices.

Rates of biomarker testing were highest for PD-L1, which was done for 83% of patients, the data show. EGFR and ALK testing were performed in 70% of patients, while ROS1 was evaluated in 68%. BRAF testing was done in 55% of patients. Testing rates appeared to be numerically higher for lung cancers with nonsquamous histology, according to Dr. Evangelist.

Over time, rates of specific biomarker testing were essentially unchanged, though a significant difference was seen for BRAF testing over time. BRAF was evaluated in 54% of patients starting therapy from April 2018 through September 2018, and 59%-62% in subsequent time periods (P = .005).

The proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers was 44% in the April-September 2018 time period, and 50%-53% in subsequent time periods, the data show (P = .0056).

The proportion of patients tested with next-generation sequencing rose from 33% to 45% between 2018 and 2020, suggesting that comprehensive testing is increasing, according to Dr. Evangelist.

The turnaround time from testing orders to results was approximately 2 weeks, underscoring a need to get test results to oncologists sooner so they can consider biomarker data as they develop a treatment plan, the US Oncology Network said in a press release that described the study.

Median time from diagnosis to treatment in the study was approximately 5 weeks, which is “a concern for patients anxiously waiting for treatment,” the press release said.
 

Raising awareness

This study should serve to raise awareness that not all NSCLC patients who should be tested are being tested, study co-author Nicholas Robert, MD, said in an interview.

“There is a great line – ‘right drug, right patient, right time’ – and we’re not meeting that,” said Dr. Robert, vice president of medical affairs for Ontada, an oncology insights and technology company that is part of McKesson, which acquired the US Oncology Network in 2010.

The hope is that general oncologists will begin thinking of biomarker testing in NSCLC as being essential in the same way hormone receptor and HER2 testing are in breast cancer, according to Dr. Robert.

“You would never think about treating anyone with breast cancer without those variables,” he said. “We’d like to think that the general oncologist feels the same way about biomarkers in non-small cell cancer, that it’s something that should be done routinely across the board.”

The next phase of the MYLUNG Consortium study will prospectively evaluate biomarker test-ordering practices, turnaround times, and treatment decision making in approximately 1,000 patients from 11 sites, while the final phase will evaluate interventions to improve biomarker testing and access to therapies in up to 7,500 patients at 20 sites, according to the US Oncology Network.

Dr. Evangelist reported a consulting or advisory role with Takeda and AstraZeneca. Dr. Robert reported employment, leadership, and stock/ownership interest disclosures related to McKesson, along with other disclosures related to Johnson & Johnson, Oncolytics Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Advi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and New Century Health. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

Lung cancer patients treated in community practices are not being comprehensively tested for biomarkers that could guide choice of first-line therapy, a recent retrospective analysis shows.

Less than half of patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a network of community practices underwent testing for all five biomarkers evaluated in the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (Abstract 9004).

Almost all of the 3,474 patients in the study (90%) had been tested for at least one biomarker, according to investigator Makenzi Colleen Evangelist, MD, an oncologist with New York Oncology Hematology, a practice in the US Oncology Network.

Only 46% were tested for all five biomarkers—ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1, and PD-L1.

“While the proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers increased over time, testing rates remain low at approximately 50%,” Dr. Evangelist said in a presentation of the results at the meeting.

This gap in testing illustrates “significant implementation challenges” that exist despite tremendous advances in biomarker-driven drug development and the technology to detect the mutations that can guide therapy, said Christine Marie Lovly, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the study. “I would strongly argue that we have to apply what we already have to get equity, while still pushing the science forward,” said Dr. Lovly of the division of hematology-oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

“We don’t want to miss the low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Lovly said. “We have to be able to make sure every patient with an EGFR mutation gets an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and so forth, for all the other biomarkers that we test for.”
 

Real-world testing

The retrospective analysis of real-world biomarker testing patterns presented by Dr. Evangelist is the first of three protocols in the MYLUNG Consortium, a collaborative research study being conducted over a five-year period, according to the US Oncology Network.

The review of electronic health records included patients with metastatic NSCLC starting first-line systemic therapy between April 2018 and March 2020 in the US Oncology Network of community practices.

Rates of biomarker testing were highest for PD-L1, which was done for 83% of patients, the data show. EGFR and ALK testing were performed in 70% of patients, while ROS1 was evaluated in 68%. BRAF testing was done in 55% of patients. Testing rates appeared to be numerically higher for lung cancers with nonsquamous histology, according to Dr. Evangelist.

Over time, rates of specific biomarker testing were essentially unchanged, though a significant difference was seen for BRAF testing over time. BRAF was evaluated in 54% of patients starting therapy from April 2018 through September 2018, and 59%-62% in subsequent time periods (P = .005).

The proportion of patients tested for all five biomarkers was 44% in the April-September 2018 time period, and 50%-53% in subsequent time periods, the data show (P = .0056).

The proportion of patients tested with next-generation sequencing rose from 33% to 45% between 2018 and 2020, suggesting that comprehensive testing is increasing, according to Dr. Evangelist.

The turnaround time from testing orders to results was approximately 2 weeks, underscoring a need to get test results to oncologists sooner so they can consider biomarker data as they develop a treatment plan, the US Oncology Network said in a press release that described the study.

Median time from diagnosis to treatment in the study was approximately 5 weeks, which is “a concern for patients anxiously waiting for treatment,” the press release said.
 

Raising awareness

This study should serve to raise awareness that not all NSCLC patients who should be tested are being tested, study co-author Nicholas Robert, MD, said in an interview.

“There is a great line – ‘right drug, right patient, right time’ – and we’re not meeting that,” said Dr. Robert, vice president of medical affairs for Ontada, an oncology insights and technology company that is part of McKesson, which acquired the US Oncology Network in 2010.

The hope is that general oncologists will begin thinking of biomarker testing in NSCLC as being essential in the same way hormone receptor and HER2 testing are in breast cancer, according to Dr. Robert.

“You would never think about treating anyone with breast cancer without those variables,” he said. “We’d like to think that the general oncologist feels the same way about biomarkers in non-small cell cancer, that it’s something that should be done routinely across the board.”

The next phase of the MYLUNG Consortium study will prospectively evaluate biomarker test-ordering practices, turnaround times, and treatment decision making in approximately 1,000 patients from 11 sites, while the final phase will evaluate interventions to improve biomarker testing and access to therapies in up to 7,500 patients at 20 sites, according to the US Oncology Network.

Dr. Evangelist reported a consulting or advisory role with Takeda and AstraZeneca. Dr. Robert reported employment, leadership, and stock/ownership interest disclosures related to McKesson, along with other disclosures related to Johnson & Johnson, Oncolytics Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Advi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and New Century Health. Dr. Lovly reported disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Pfizer, among others.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

Experiencing an immune-related adverse event during checkpoint inhibitor treatment may predict outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, exploratory analyses of phase 3 trials suggest.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were tied to longer overall survival (OS) in exploratory pooled analyses of three phase 3 clinical trials evaluating atezolizumab-based regimens, according to investigator Mark A. Socinski, MD, of AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Fla.

Median OS approached 26 months for patients who received first-line atezolizumab and experienced an irAE, compared with just 13 months for those who did not experience an irAE, according to results reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting (Abstract 9002).

Atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3 or greater irAEs had the shortest OS, shorter than those atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 1-2 irAEs or no irAEs at all. That short OS may be due to treatment interruptions or discontinuations, said Dr. Socinski.

“Data from these analyses suggest an association between irAEs and efficacy in patients with [non-small cell cancer] NSCLC,” he stated in his presentation of the results.
 

A lot more to learn about irAEs

Similar linkages between irAEs and outcomes were observed in pooled analyses of patients enrolled in the control arms of the phase 3 trials, with a median OS of about 20 months for control patients experiencing an irAE, versus about 13 months for those who did not.

That linkage in the control arm prompted a question from an ASCO attendee about why an effect of irAEs, commonly associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, would be evident in analyses of patients who did not receive those agents.

In his response, Dr. Socinski characterized the finding as “a surprise” and said the finding may either reflect how adverse events are characterized or how chemotherapy impacts the immune system.

“I don’t know that our definition of irAEs is perfect,” he said, “and maybe we don’t understand what impact chemotherapy may have on the immune system, and may actually engender what historically we’ve always seen as an adverse event, but didn’t necessarily classify as an immune-related adverse event.”

More work is needed to better understand the connection between irAES and outcomes, and whether anything can be done as a result of that improved understanding, said discussant Mary Weber Redman, PhD.

“The question is, ‘what is actionable?’” added Dr. Redman, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

A firmer understanding of the relationship between irAEs and outcomes could change how clinicians monitor patients for irAEs, lead to better prediction of which patients may experience higher grade irAEs, and ultimately impact treatment selection potentially to avoid those higher grade events, Dr. Redman said in her remarks.

“Doing these types of analyses are quite important, because we have to look at the breadth of information that we have to be able to interpret that and think about what are future questions,” she said in the question-and-answer session accompanying Dr. Socinski’s presentation.

“I think the key is that we shouldn’t use these analyses to be definitive, but we should use them as to be hypothesis generating,” she added.
 

More evidence to link irAEs and outcomes

Immune-related AEs caused by off-target immune and inflammatory activity have been reported in up to 80% of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and up to 95% in combination regimens, Dr. Socinski said in his presentation.

“Increasing evidence suggests that the occurrence of immune-related adverse events with PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor therapy may be predictive of improved outcomes in cancers such as NSCLC, “ he added.

In their exploratory pooled analyses, Dr. Socinski and co-investigators looked at data from the phase 3 IMpower130 and IMpower132 trials, which evaluated first-line atezolizumab and chemotherapy for NSCLC, and the phase 3 IMpower150 trial, which evaluated atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

In all, they analyzed data for 1,557 atezolizumab-treated patients, and 900 patients who had been in the control arms of the studies.

Forty-eight percent of atezolizumab-treated patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 11% experienced irAEs of grade 3-5, according to the presented data. In the control arm, 32% experienced irAEs of any grade and 5% experienced grade 3-5 irAEs.

The most common irAEs of any grade were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism, occurring in 28%, 15%, and 12% of atezolizumab-treated patients, respectively.

Median OS in the atezolizumab arm was 25.7 months for patients with irAEs and 13.0 for patients with no irAEs, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 using a time-dependent Cox model.

Median OS in the control arm was 20.2 months for patients with irAEs and 12.8 months for patients with no irAEs, with an HR of 0.82.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the atezolizumab arm was 61.1% for patients with irAEs and 37.2% for those without irAEs; in the control arm, ORR was 42.2% for patients with irAEs and 34.0% for those with no irAEs.

Atezolizumab-treated patients who experienced grade 3-5 irAEs had the shortest OS, according to Dr. Socinski. The HRs for OS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in atezolizumab-treated patients with grade 3-5 irAEs (compared with those without irAEs) ranged from 1.25 to 0.87. By contrast, HRs at those time points for patients with grade 1-2 irAEs ranged from 0.78 to 0.72, Dr. Socinski said.

Dr. Socinski reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Redman reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca.

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

The higher the HER2 expression, the more benefit patients get from the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer in the salvage setting, according to a phase 2 report.

Among the 53 patients with the highest expression in the study – defined as 3+ expression on immune histochemical staining or 2+ with positive in situ hybridization – median progression median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months after failure of a median of four prior regimens.

With standard drugs, mPFS would be expected to be about 2 months or less, said investigator Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, MD, an associate professor of GI medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Many of the 86 study participants were enrolled at MD Anderson, and “they all derived some benefit from the conjugate. “It’s fairly well tolerated,” and “our experience has been pretty good; I think it’s actually a pretty good drug,” Dr. Raghav said shortly before presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

HER2 is over-expressed in about 5% of colorectal cancer patients. The conjugate is a kind of “smart bomb” for them that combines the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The trastuzumab portion of the combination zeros in on cancer cells expressing HER2, delivering the cytotoxic agent directly to them.

“The amount of [cytotoxic] drug delivered by the antibody inside the cell is far in excess” to the standard approach of delivering chemotherapy agents individually, Dr. Raghav said.

“Single-agent treatments targeting HER2 only have modest activity. Seeing a response rate of [almost] 50% in colorectal cancer tumors that have high expression of HER2 is very exciting,” Muhammad Beg, MD, a GI oncologist and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said when asked for comment.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan already is approved for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer after at least two anti-HER2-based regimens and locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after a prior trastuzumab-based regime.

The phase 2 study, dubbed DESTINY-CRC01, divided patients by HER2 expression. In addition to the 53 “high-expressors,” there were 15 medium-expressors – defined as 2+ on immunohistochemical staining and no in situ hybridization – and 18 low-expressors with 1+ HER2 expression.

The patients had run out of other options, having experienced progression on 2 to 11 previous regimens. All participants had been on the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan before, and almost a third of the high-expressors had been on anti-HER2 regimen.

They were treated with 6.4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks for a median of 3 months. There was no control group.

The overall response rate was 45.3% among high-expressors. In addition to the mPFS of 6.9 months, median overall survival was 15.5 months. Among those on prior anti-HER2 therapy, the overall response rate was 43.8%.

Benefit was minimal in the lower-expression groups, with a mPFS of 2.1 months and overall survival of 7.3 months in medium-expressors and a mPFS of 1.4 months and overall survival of 7.7 months in low-expressors.

Sixty-five percent of patients (56) had treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly hematologic and gastrointestinal; 13 subjects (15.1%) discontinued due to adverse events.

Eight patients (9.3%) developed interstitial lung disease, a particular concern with trastuzumab deruxtecan; it was fatal for three. “We need to study the lung toxicity. It will become a bigger factor as we think about using this drug for earlier lines of treatment,” Dr. Beg noted.

The median age in the study was 58.5 years, just over half the subjects were men, and more than 90% had left-sided colon or rectum cancer.

The next step in development is a randomized trial in unresectable/metastatic HER2-positive colorectal cancer dubbed DESTINY-CRC02, comparing the 6.4 mg dose with 5.4 mg. It’s already started recruiting.

The work was funded by trastuzumab deruxtecan maker Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Raghav is an advisor and researcher for the company; Dr. Beg had no relationships with it.

[email protected]

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

 

 

Lower-dose injectable and pill already approved for diabetes

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.

On the medication front, there are now “four pillars of survival” in the setting of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF), a cardiologist told hospitalists recently at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The quartet of drugs are beta blockers, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the newest addition – sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“If we use all four of these medications, the absolute risk reduction [in mortality] is 25% over a 2-year period,” said cardiologist Celeste T. Williams, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. “So it is very important that we use these medications,” she said.

But managing the medications, she said, can be challenging. Dr. Williams offered these tips about the use of medication in heart failure.
 

Beta blockers are crucial players

“Beta blockers save lives,” Dr. Williams said, “but there’s always a debate about how much we should titrate beta blockers.”

How can you determine the proper titration? Focus on heart rates, she recommended. “We know that higher heart rates in heart failure patients are associated with worse outcomes. There was subgroup analysis in the BEAUTIFUL study that looked at 5,300 patients with EF less than 40% who had CAD [coronary artery disease]. They found that patients with heart rates greater than 70 had a 34% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 53% increased risk of heart failure hospitalization compared to heart rates less than 70.”

Focus on getting your patient’s heart rate lower than 70 while maintaining their blood pressure, she said.

“Another question we have is, ‘When these patients come into hospitals, what should we do with the beta blocker? Should we continue it? Should we stop it?’ If you can, you always want to continue the beta blocker or the ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor, because studies have shown us that the likelihood for patients to be on these medications 90 days later is dismal,” she said. “But you also need to look at the patient. If the patient is in cardiogenic shock, their beta blocker should be stopped.”
 

Consider multiple factors when titrating various medications

“In the hospital, we always will look at hemodynamic compromise in the patient. Is the patient in cardiogenic shock?” Dr. Williams said. “We also must think about compliance concerns. Are the patients even taking their medication? And if they are taking their medications, are they tolerating standard medical therapy? Are they hypotensive? Are they only able to tolerate minimal meds? Have you seen that their creatine continues to rise? Or are they having poor diuresis with the rise in diuretics?”

All these questions are useful, she said, as you determine whether you should titrate medication yourself or refer the patient to an advanced heart failure specialist.
 

Understand when to stick with guideline-directed medical therapy

Dr. Williams said another question often arises: “If your patient’s EF recovers, should you stop guideline-directed medical therapy [GDMT]?” She highlighted a TRED-HF study that evaluated patients who had recovered from dilated, nonischemic cardiomyopathy and were receiving GDMT. “They withdrew GDMT for half of the patients and looked at their echoes 6 months later. They found that 40% of the patients relapsed. Their EFs went below 40% again. Stopping medications is not the best idea for most of these patients.”

However, she said, there are scenarios in which GDMT may be withdrawn, such as for patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathies whose EF recovers after ablation, those whose EF recovers after alcoholic cardiomyopathy, and those who receive valve replacements. “We need to remember that a lot of the patients who develop stage C heart failure have risk factors. Even though their heart failure has recovered, they have risks that need to be treated, and you can use the same medications that you use for heart failure to control their risk. Therefore, you would not get into trouble by withdrawing their medications.”

She added: “If you’re unable to titrate GDMT because the blood pressure is too soft, the creatine continues to rise, or the patient just has a lot of heart failure symptoms, this is indicative that the patient is sicker than they may appear.” At this point, defer to a heart failure specialist, she said.
 

Consider ivabradine as an add-on when appropriate

In some cases, a heart rate of less than 70 bpm will not be achieved even with GDMT and maximum tolerated doses, Dr. Williams said. “If they’re in sinus, you can add on a medication called ivabradine, which was studied in the SHIFT study. This looked at patients with EF of less than 35% who had class 2-3 heart failure in sinus rhythm. They had to have a hospitalization within the last 12 months. The patients were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo. The primary outcome was [cardiovascular] death or heart failure hospitalization. They found that patients who had ivabradine had a decrease in heart failure hospitalization.”

The lesson, she said, is that “ivabradine is a great medication to add on to patients who are still tachycardic in sinus when you cannot titrate up the beta blocker.”

Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

On the medication front, there are now “four pillars of survival” in the setting of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF), a cardiologist told hospitalists recently at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The quartet of drugs are beta blockers, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the newest addition – sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“If we use all four of these medications, the absolute risk reduction [in mortality] is 25% over a 2-year period,” said cardiologist Celeste T. Williams, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. “So it is very important that we use these medications,” she said.

But managing the medications, she said, can be challenging. Dr. Williams offered these tips about the use of medication in heart failure.
 

Beta blockers are crucial players

“Beta blockers save lives,” Dr. Williams said, “but there’s always a debate about how much we should titrate beta blockers.”

How can you determine the proper titration? Focus on heart rates, she recommended. “We know that higher heart rates in heart failure patients are associated with worse outcomes. There was subgroup analysis in the BEAUTIFUL study that looked at 5,300 patients with EF less than 40% who had CAD [coronary artery disease]. They found that patients with heart rates greater than 70 had a 34% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 53% increased risk of heart failure hospitalization compared to heart rates less than 70.”

Focus on getting your patient’s heart rate lower than 70 while maintaining their blood pressure, she said.

“Another question we have is, ‘When these patients come into hospitals, what should we do with the beta blocker? Should we continue it? Should we stop it?’ If you can, you always want to continue the beta blocker or the ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor, because studies have shown us that the likelihood for patients to be on these medications 90 days later is dismal,” she said. “But you also need to look at the patient. If the patient is in cardiogenic shock, their beta blocker should be stopped.”
 

Consider multiple factors when titrating various medications

“In the hospital, we always will look at hemodynamic compromise in the patient. Is the patient in cardiogenic shock?” Dr. Williams said. “We also must think about compliance concerns. Are the patients even taking their medication? And if they are taking their medications, are they tolerating standard medical therapy? Are they hypotensive? Are they only able to tolerate minimal meds? Have you seen that their creatine continues to rise? Or are they having poor diuresis with the rise in diuretics?”

All these questions are useful, she said, as you determine whether you should titrate medication yourself or refer the patient to an advanced heart failure specialist.
 

Understand when to stick with guideline-directed medical therapy

Dr. Williams said another question often arises: “If your patient’s EF recovers, should you stop guideline-directed medical therapy [GDMT]?” She highlighted a TRED-HF study that evaluated patients who had recovered from dilated, nonischemic cardiomyopathy and were receiving GDMT. “They withdrew GDMT for half of the patients and looked at their echoes 6 months later. They found that 40% of the patients relapsed. Their EFs went below 40% again. Stopping medications is not the best idea for most of these patients.”

However, she said, there are scenarios in which GDMT may be withdrawn, such as for patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathies whose EF recovers after ablation, those whose EF recovers after alcoholic cardiomyopathy, and those who receive valve replacements. “We need to remember that a lot of the patients who develop stage C heart failure have risk factors. Even though their heart failure has recovered, they have risks that need to be treated, and you can use the same medications that you use for heart failure to control their risk. Therefore, you would not get into trouble by withdrawing their medications.”

She added: “If you’re unable to titrate GDMT because the blood pressure is too soft, the creatine continues to rise, or the patient just has a lot of heart failure symptoms, this is indicative that the patient is sicker than they may appear.” At this point, defer to a heart failure specialist, she said.
 

Consider ivabradine as an add-on when appropriate

In some cases, a heart rate of less than 70 bpm will not be achieved even with GDMT and maximum tolerated doses, Dr. Williams said. “If they’re in sinus, you can add on a medication called ivabradine, which was studied in the SHIFT study. This looked at patients with EF of less than 35% who had class 2-3 heart failure in sinus rhythm. They had to have a hospitalization within the last 12 months. The patients were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo. The primary outcome was [cardiovascular] death or heart failure hospitalization. They found that patients who had ivabradine had a decrease in heart failure hospitalization.”

The lesson, she said, is that “ivabradine is a great medication to add on to patients who are still tachycardic in sinus when you cannot titrate up the beta blocker.”

Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

On the medication front, there are now “four pillars of survival” in the setting of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF), a cardiologist told hospitalists recently at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The quartet of drugs are beta blockers, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the newest addition – sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“If we use all four of these medications, the absolute risk reduction [in mortality] is 25% over a 2-year period,” said cardiologist Celeste T. Williams, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. “So it is very important that we use these medications,” she said.

But managing the medications, she said, can be challenging. Dr. Williams offered these tips about the use of medication in heart failure.
 

Beta blockers are crucial players

“Beta blockers save lives,” Dr. Williams said, “but there’s always a debate about how much we should titrate beta blockers.”

How can you determine the proper titration? Focus on heart rates, she recommended. “We know that higher heart rates in heart failure patients are associated with worse outcomes. There was subgroup analysis in the BEAUTIFUL study that looked at 5,300 patients with EF less than 40% who had CAD [coronary artery disease]. They found that patients with heart rates greater than 70 had a 34% increased risk of cardiovascular death and a 53% increased risk of heart failure hospitalization compared to heart rates less than 70.”

Focus on getting your patient’s heart rate lower than 70 while maintaining their blood pressure, she said.

“Another question we have is, ‘When these patients come into hospitals, what should we do with the beta blocker? Should we continue it? Should we stop it?’ If you can, you always want to continue the beta blocker or the ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor, because studies have shown us that the likelihood for patients to be on these medications 90 days later is dismal,” she said. “But you also need to look at the patient. If the patient is in cardiogenic shock, their beta blocker should be stopped.”
 

Consider multiple factors when titrating various medications

“In the hospital, we always will look at hemodynamic compromise in the patient. Is the patient in cardiogenic shock?” Dr. Williams said. “We also must think about compliance concerns. Are the patients even taking their medication? And if they are taking their medications, are they tolerating standard medical therapy? Are they hypotensive? Are they only able to tolerate minimal meds? Have you seen that their creatine continues to rise? Or are they having poor diuresis with the rise in diuretics?”

All these questions are useful, she said, as you determine whether you should titrate medication yourself or refer the patient to an advanced heart failure specialist.
 

Understand when to stick with guideline-directed medical therapy

Dr. Williams said another question often arises: “If your patient’s EF recovers, should you stop guideline-directed medical therapy [GDMT]?” She highlighted a TRED-HF study that evaluated patients who had recovered from dilated, nonischemic cardiomyopathy and were receiving GDMT. “They withdrew GDMT for half of the patients and looked at their echoes 6 months later. They found that 40% of the patients relapsed. Their EFs went below 40% again. Stopping medications is not the best idea for most of these patients.”

However, she said, there are scenarios in which GDMT may be withdrawn, such as for patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathies whose EF recovers after ablation, those whose EF recovers after alcoholic cardiomyopathy, and those who receive valve replacements. “We need to remember that a lot of the patients who develop stage C heart failure have risk factors. Even though their heart failure has recovered, they have risks that need to be treated, and you can use the same medications that you use for heart failure to control their risk. Therefore, you would not get into trouble by withdrawing their medications.”

She added: “If you’re unable to titrate GDMT because the blood pressure is too soft, the creatine continues to rise, or the patient just has a lot of heart failure symptoms, this is indicative that the patient is sicker than they may appear.” At this point, defer to a heart failure specialist, she said.
 

Consider ivabradine as an add-on when appropriate

In some cases, a heart rate of less than 70 bpm will not be achieved even with GDMT and maximum tolerated doses, Dr. Williams said. “If they’re in sinus, you can add on a medication called ivabradine, which was studied in the SHIFT study. This looked at patients with EF of less than 35% who had class 2-3 heart failure in sinus rhythm. They had to have a hospitalization within the last 12 months. The patients were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo. The primary outcome was [cardiovascular] death or heart failure hospitalization. They found that patients who had ivabradine had a decrease in heart failure hospitalization.”

The lesson, she said, is that “ivabradine is a great medication to add on to patients who are still tachycardic in sinus when you cannot titrate up the beta blocker.”

Dr. Williams reports no relevant financial relationships.

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