Treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) focus on reducing chronic type 2 inflammation. When intranasal corticosteroids, nasal saline irrigation, antibiotics, and oral steroids fail, patients move to surgery. Unfortunately, 40% of patients experience polyp regrowth following surgery. 
New research in biologic therapy is showing promise. Inflammatory mediators IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IgE play key roles in CRSwNP. Targeting these specific inflammatory pathways may provide effective treatment options for refractory CRSwNP patients.
Dr Anju Peters discusses dupilumab, a biologic currently approved for CRSwNP, as well as other targeted biologics in development.

---

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Director of Clinical Research, Associate Chief of Research, Education, and Clinical Affairs, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
Serve(d) on the advisory board for: Sanofi Regeneron; Optinose; AstraZeneca. Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Optinose.

Treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) focus on reducing chronic type 2 inflammation. When intranasal corticosteroids, nasal saline irrigation, antibiotics, and oral steroids fail, patients move to surgery. Unfortunately, 40% of patients experience polyp regrowth following surgery. 
New research in biologic therapy is showing promise. Inflammatory mediators IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IgE play key roles in CRSwNP. Targeting these specific inflammatory pathways may provide effective treatment options for refractory CRSwNP patients.
Dr Anju Peters discusses dupilumab, a biologic currently approved for CRSwNP, as well as other targeted biologics in development.

---

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Director of Clinical Research, Associate Chief of Research, Education, and Clinical Affairs, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
Serve(d) on the advisory board for: Sanofi Regeneron; Optinose; AstraZeneca. Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Optinose.

Treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) focus on reducing chronic type 2 inflammation. When intranasal corticosteroids, nasal saline irrigation, antibiotics, and oral steroids fail, patients move to surgery. Unfortunately, 40% of patients experience polyp regrowth following surgery. 
New research in biologic therapy is showing promise. Inflammatory mediators IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IgE play key roles in CRSwNP. Targeting these specific inflammatory pathways may provide effective treatment options for refractory CRSwNP patients.
Dr Anju Peters discusses dupilumab, a biologic currently approved for CRSwNP, as well as other targeted biologics in development.

---

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Director of Clinical Research, Associate Chief of Research, Education, and Clinical Affairs, Division of Allergy-Immunology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Anju T. Peters, MD, MSci, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 
Serve(d) on the advisory board for: Sanofi Regeneron; Optinose; AstraZeneca. Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Optinose.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a common condition that significantly affects quality of life and results in more than a million surgeries a year worldwide.

Symptoms of CRSwNP often mimic allergic rhinitis or bacterial rhinosinusitis, and patients frequently receive inappropriate prescriptions for allergy medications and even multiple courses of antibiotics. But appropriate therapeutic intervention can help to relieve CRSwNP symptoms, prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, reduce disease progression, and potentially prevent the need for nasal polypectomy.

Dr Stella Lee from the University of Pittsburgh discusses the importance of early and accurate diagnosis of CRSwNP, which is now viewed as a long-term, systemic inflammatory disorder, as well as strategies to assess symptom and disease severity.  

---

Stella Lee, MD, Chief, Sinonasal Disorder and Allergy; Assistant Professor, Otolaryngology, Department of Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .

Stella Lee, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: sanofi-aventis; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Genentech.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a common condition that significantly affects quality of life and results in more than a million surgeries a year worldwide.

Symptoms of CRSwNP often mimic allergic rhinitis or bacterial rhinosinusitis, and patients frequently receive inappropriate prescriptions for allergy medications and even multiple courses of antibiotics. But appropriate therapeutic intervention can help to relieve CRSwNP symptoms, prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, reduce disease progression, and potentially prevent the need for nasal polypectomy.

Dr Stella Lee from the University of Pittsburgh discusses the importance of early and accurate diagnosis of CRSwNP, which is now viewed as a long-term, systemic inflammatory disorder, as well as strategies to assess symptom and disease severity.  

---

Stella Lee, MD, Chief, Sinonasal Disorder and Allergy; Assistant Professor, Otolaryngology, Department of Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .

Stella Lee, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: sanofi-aventis; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Genentech.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a common condition that significantly affects quality of life and results in more than a million surgeries a year worldwide.

Symptoms of CRSwNP often mimic allergic rhinitis or bacterial rhinosinusitis, and patients frequently receive inappropriate prescriptions for allergy medications and even multiple courses of antibiotics. But appropriate therapeutic intervention can help to relieve CRSwNP symptoms, prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, reduce disease progression, and potentially prevent the need for nasal polypectomy.

Dr Stella Lee from the University of Pittsburgh discusses the importance of early and accurate diagnosis of CRSwNP, which is now viewed as a long-term, systemic inflammatory disorder, as well as strategies to assess symptom and disease severity.  

---

Stella Lee, MD, Chief, Sinonasal Disorder and Allergy; Assistant Professor, Otolaryngology, Department of Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .

Stella Lee, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: sanofi-aventis; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Genentech.

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

Key clinical point: Bone marrow stromal cells in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia showed a reduced frequency of colony forming unit-fibroblasts.

Major finding: The frequencies of positive/positive bone marrow stromal cells were significantly lower in AML patient samples compared to healthy individuals and MDS bone marrow samples. The median cell numbers of bone marrow stromal cells in diagnostic samples were 3,200 for healthy samples, 476 for MDS samples, and 70 for AML samples.

Study details: The data come from bone marrow samples in AML patients, MDS patients, and healthy donors.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Projekt DEAL and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1243 for projects A09 and the FOR2033 project B3, as well as the Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukämie Stiftung. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Weickert M-T et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85122-8.

Key clinical point: Bone marrow stromal cells in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia showed a reduced frequency of colony forming unit-fibroblasts.

Major finding: The frequencies of positive/positive bone marrow stromal cells were significantly lower in AML patient samples compared to healthy individuals and MDS bone marrow samples. The median cell numbers of bone marrow stromal cells in diagnostic samples were 3,200 for healthy samples, 476 for MDS samples, and 70 for AML samples.

Study details: The data come from bone marrow samples in AML patients, MDS patients, and healthy donors.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Projekt DEAL and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1243 for projects A09 and the FOR2033 project B3, as well as the Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukämie Stiftung. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Weickert M-T et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85122-8.

Key clinical point: Bone marrow stromal cells in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia showed a reduced frequency of colony forming unit-fibroblasts.

Major finding: The frequencies of positive/positive bone marrow stromal cells were significantly lower in AML patient samples compared to healthy individuals and MDS bone marrow samples. The median cell numbers of bone marrow stromal cells in diagnostic samples were 3,200 for healthy samples, 476 for MDS samples, and 70 for AML samples.

Study details: The data come from bone marrow samples in AML patients, MDS patients, and healthy donors.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Projekt DEAL and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1243 for projects A09 and the FOR2033 project B3, as well as the Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukämie Stiftung. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Weickert M-T et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85122-8.

Key clinical point: Treatment with a combination of venetoclax (VEN) and hypomethylating agents (HMA) may be an option for younger AML patients, but myelosuppression was a concern, and 43.7% of treated patients were hospitalized for a treatment-related adverse event.

Major finding: In the 26 newly-diagnosed AML patients, the complete remission rate was 53.8%, but only 38.5% in the 39 relapsed/refractory patients; however, 70% remained dependent on red blood cell transfusion and 58.6% remained dependent on platelet transfusion during and after treatment.

Study details: The data come from 65 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and 7 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome who were treated with a combination of VEN and HMA.

Disclosures: The study’s corresponding author was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Lead author Dr. Feld had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Feld J et al. Hemasphere. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000549.

Key clinical point: Treatment with a combination of venetoclax (VEN) and hypomethylating agents (HMA) may be an option for younger AML patients, but myelosuppression was a concern, and 43.7% of treated patients were hospitalized for a treatment-related adverse event.

Major finding: In the 26 newly-diagnosed AML patients, the complete remission rate was 53.8%, but only 38.5% in the 39 relapsed/refractory patients; however, 70% remained dependent on red blood cell transfusion and 58.6% remained dependent on platelet transfusion during and after treatment.

Study details: The data come from 65 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and 7 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome who were treated with a combination of VEN and HMA.

Disclosures: The study’s corresponding author was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Lead author Dr. Feld had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Feld J et al. Hemasphere. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000549.

Key clinical point: Treatment with a combination of venetoclax (VEN) and hypomethylating agents (HMA) may be an option for younger AML patients, but myelosuppression was a concern, and 43.7% of treated patients were hospitalized for a treatment-related adverse event.

Major finding: In the 26 newly-diagnosed AML patients, the complete remission rate was 53.8%, but only 38.5% in the 39 relapsed/refractory patients; however, 70% remained dependent on red blood cell transfusion and 58.6% remained dependent on platelet transfusion during and after treatment.

Study details: The data come from 65 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and 7 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome who were treated with a combination of VEN and HMA.

Disclosures: The study’s corresponding author was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Lead author Dr. Feld had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Feld J et al. Hemasphere. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000549.

Key clinical point: Mutations promoting loss of function in the histone methyltransferase EZH2 are relatively rare but may promote chemoresistance to the treatment agent cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Major finding: In cell lines and in patient samples, AML patients, loss of function of EZH2 fostered resistance to cytarabine; the EZH2 mutation was present in 4% of AML patients at diagnosis; low expression of EZH2 mRNA was correlated with poor overall survival and relapse-free survival.

Study details: The data come from a combination of patient samples, in vivo and in vitro patient-derived xenografts, and haematopeoietic cell lines, and included 25 patients with an EZH2 mutation at the time of diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Projekt DEAL. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Kempf JM et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84708-6.

Key clinical point: Mutations promoting loss of function in the histone methyltransferase EZH2 are relatively rare but may promote chemoresistance to the treatment agent cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Major finding: In cell lines and in patient samples, AML patients, loss of function of EZH2 fostered resistance to cytarabine; the EZH2 mutation was present in 4% of AML patients at diagnosis; low expression of EZH2 mRNA was correlated with poor overall survival and relapse-free survival.

Study details: The data come from a combination of patient samples, in vivo and in vitro patient-derived xenografts, and haematopeoietic cell lines, and included 25 patients with an EZH2 mutation at the time of diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Projekt DEAL. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Kempf JM et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84708-6.

Key clinical point: Mutations promoting loss of function in the histone methyltransferase EZH2 are relatively rare but may promote chemoresistance to the treatment agent cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Major finding: In cell lines and in patient samples, AML patients, loss of function of EZH2 fostered resistance to cytarabine; the EZH2 mutation was present in 4% of AML patients at diagnosis; low expression of EZH2 mRNA was correlated with poor overall survival and relapse-free survival.

Study details: The data come from a combination of patient samples, in vivo and in vitro patient-derived xenografts, and haematopeoietic cell lines, and included 25 patients with an EZH2 mutation at the time of diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Projekt DEAL. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Kempf JM et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84708-6.

Key clinical point: Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) showed that the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway was positively related to FLT3-ITD mutation.

Major finding: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia, expression of RPS6KA1 and AP2M1 were predictors of chemoresistance and overall survival.

Study details: The data come from four genetic data sets: GSE6891, GSE10358, GSE15434, and GSE61804 of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. 

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Young & Middle-aged Medical Key Talents Training Project of Wuhan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Yu D-H et al. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Feb 26. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.641629.

Key clinical point: Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) showed that the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway was positively related to FLT3-ITD mutation.

Major finding: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia, expression of RPS6KA1 and AP2M1 were predictors of chemoresistance and overall survival.

Study details: The data come from four genetic data sets: GSE6891, GSE10358, GSE15434, and GSE61804 of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. 

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Young & Middle-aged Medical Key Talents Training Project of Wuhan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Yu D-H et al. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Feb 26. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.641629.

Key clinical point: Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) showed that the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway was positively related to FLT3-ITD mutation.

Major finding: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia, expression of RPS6KA1 and AP2M1 were predictors of chemoresistance and overall survival.

Study details: The data come from four genetic data sets: GSE6891, GSE10358, GSE15434, and GSE61804 of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. 

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Young & Middle-aged Medical Key Talents Training Project of Wuhan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Yu D-H et al. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Feb 26. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.641629.

Key clinical point: For AML patients unable to undergo intensive chemotherapy, glasdegib and venetoclax were similarly effective, each in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

Major finding: Overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46).

Study details: The data come an indirect comparison of studies of each treatment: the BRIGHT AML 1003 GLAS+LDAC trial, and the VIALE-C VEN+LDAC trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Several researchers are Pfizer employees and lead author Dr. Tremblay served as a paid consultant to Pfizer during the study.

Source: Tremblay G et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0280.

Key clinical point: For AML patients unable to undergo intensive chemotherapy, glasdegib and venetoclax were similarly effective, each in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

Major finding: Overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46).

Study details: The data come an indirect comparison of studies of each treatment: the BRIGHT AML 1003 GLAS+LDAC trial, and the VIALE-C VEN+LDAC trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Several researchers are Pfizer employees and lead author Dr. Tremblay served as a paid consultant to Pfizer during the study.

Source: Tremblay G et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0280.

Key clinical point: For AML patients unable to undergo intensive chemotherapy, glasdegib and venetoclax were similarly effective, each in combination with low-dose cytarabine.

Major finding: Overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46).

Study details: The data come an indirect comparison of studies of each treatment: the BRIGHT AML 1003 GLAS+LDAC trial, and the VIALE-C VEN+LDAC trial.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Several researchers are Pfizer employees and lead author Dr. Tremblay served as a paid consultant to Pfizer during the study.

Source: Tremblay G et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2021 Mar 18. doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0280.