Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.

However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.

The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.

Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.

The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).

The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).

PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).

The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.

At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.

These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.

“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”

Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.

This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.

Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).

In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).

Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.

Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.

Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
 

Nivolumab in adjuvant setting

The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.

This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.

Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.

Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.

Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”

However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.

In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.

Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.

CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.

However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.

The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.

Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.

The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).

The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).

PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).

The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.

At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.

These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.

“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”

Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.

This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.

Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).

In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).

Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.

Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.

Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
 

Nivolumab in adjuvant setting

The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.

This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.

Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.

Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.

Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”

However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.

In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.

Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.

CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) could experience significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), and maybe overall survival (OS), with nivolumab (Opdivo) in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings, suggest data from three phase 3 trials.

However, contrasting results between the trials and question marks over the effect of the drug in all-comers leave some questions yet to be answered, despite the “practice-changing” findings, said experts discussing the new data.

The research was presented Sept. 21 at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Gastric cancer and GEJ have been an area of interest for immunotherapy in recent years, as standard first-line chemotherapy is associated with poor OS at a median of less than 1 year.

Previous smaller studies have suggested that nivolumab has promising activity in the first-line setting, improving survival particularly in individuals with a combined positive score (CPS) for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5.

The new results come from the largest phase 3 trial of its kind to date, CheckMate 649, which involved 1,581 previously untreated patients with unresectable HER2-negative gastric cancer, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Among these patients, 60% had a PD-L1 CPS ≥5.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Results, after a minimum follow-up of 12 months, show that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was associated with significantly better OS than chemotherapy alone, reported Markus Moehler, MD, PhD, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, median OS was 14.4 months with nivolumab-chemotherapy versus 11.1 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.71, P < .0001).

The figures were similar for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥1, at 14.0 months and 11.3 months (HR, 0.77; P = .0001), and also across the whole study population (13.8 months vs. 11.6 months; HR, 0.80, P = .0002).

PFS, however, was significantly improved with the nivolumab-chemotherapy combination only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥5, at a median of 7.7 months vs 6.0 months (HR, 0.68, P < .0001).

The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 36% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 24% for chemotherapy alone.

At a press conference, Dr. Moehler said the benefits seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy are “highly clinically meaningful,” and the combination “represents a new potential standard first-line treatment” for these patients.

These results are “practice changing” and are “clearly significant,” commented Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, Krankenhaus Nordwest-University Cancer Center, Frankfurt, Germany, who was not involved with the study.

“However, as a physician,” he continued, “I am treating an individual patient and, for me, it’s important to know the efficacy in the patients with a CPS of 1-4, or of 0.”

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high-expressers,” he said, adding that other factors to consider will be microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. “I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat the patient sitting in front of us.”

Surprisingly, the results from ATTRACTION-4, a very similar phase 3 trial conducted in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, did not follow the same pattern.

This trial involved 724 previously untreated patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer or GEJ randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone.

Lead author Narikazu Boku, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, said that, after a median follow-up of 11.6 months, the combination treatment was associated with a significant improvement in PFS, at a median 10.5 months versus 8.3 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68, P = .0007).

In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between the nivolumab and placebo arms, at a median of 17.5 months and 17.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.90; P = .257).

Invited discussant Elizabeth Smyth, MD, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, suggested the lack of OS benefit seen in ATTRACTION-4 could be the result of a number of factors, including that PD-L1 status was assessed on tumor cells only and there were no key endpoints based around PD-L1 status.

Moreover, the posttrial therapy could have affected the overall results, as Asian patients typically receive more subsequent therapies than those elsewhere.

Dr. Smyth also commented that both CheckMate 649 and ATTRACTION-4 represent a “paradigm shift” in the first-line treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
 

Nivolumab in adjuvant setting

The results of a third trial presented at the ESMO meeting suggest a role for nivolumab in the adjuvant setting, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer.

This was the CheckMate 577 trial, which compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo in 794 patients from across the globe.

Nivolumab significantly increased median disease-free survival to 22.4 months versus 11.0 months with placebo (HR, 0.69, P = .0003).

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 9% of nivolumab patients versus 3% on placebo, reported Ronan J. Kelly, MD, chief of oncology at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.

Interestingly, patient-reported health status on the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index were similar between nivolumab- and placebo-treated patients, with both groups experiencing clinically meaningful improvements.

Dr. Kelly said this is “the first adjuvant therapy to provide a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in patients with esophageal cancer or GEJ cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Consequently, the results “represent the first advance in years for this group of patients, potentially establishing adjuvant nivolumab as a new standard of care.”

However, the invited discussant raised several issues with the trial design. Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short, commented Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia (Spain), and president-elect of ESMO.

In addition, there was no differentiation between esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma histologies.

Nevertheless, CheckMate 577 is the first positive adjuvant study for checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal tumors and, crucially, the results “are independent of PD-L1 status,” Dr. Cervantes said.

CheckMate 649 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. ATTRACTION-4 was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CheckMate 577 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of the presenters reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
 

‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance

Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.

Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).

The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.

But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.

This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.

Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors

“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.

“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”

Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.

A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
 

New analyses show more renal-effect consistency

One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.

Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.

Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.

“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.

A teaser for HFpEF

One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.

VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk

[email protected]

Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
 

‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance

Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.

Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).

The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.

But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.

This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.

Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors

“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.

“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”

Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.

A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
 

New analyses show more renal-effect consistency

One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.

Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.

Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.

“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.

A teaser for HFpEF

One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.

VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk

[email protected]

Further analyses from the cardiovascular outcome trial of the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes helped better define positive effects the drug had on preserving renal function, and also gave a tantalizing hint that this drug, and hence possibly the entire SGLT2 inhibitor drug class, may benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

But the underlying problem for ertugliflozin (Steglatro) – first seen when results from the VERTIS CV trial initially came out in June 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association – was that, while the trial met its primary endpoint of proving noninferiority to placebo for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, treatment with ertugliflozin showed no suggestion of benefit, compared with placebo for reducing this endpoint, producing a nonsignificant 3% relative cut in the combined rate of these adverse events, compared with placebo treatment.
 

‘Somewhat disappointing’ trial performance

Overall, results from VERTIS CV with ertugliflozin were “somewhat disappointing,” commented Melanie J. Davies, MD, who was not involved with the study and chaired a session at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that reviewed the main results, put them into perspective, and added a few new exploratory analyses.

Although the results from 8,246-patient VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) put ertugliflozin in the same league as other drugs from its class for safety, “we do not see the significant benefits observed in many of the previous cardiovascular outcomes trials” for other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), Dr. Davies said in an interview. The upshot, for at least the time being, is that ertugliflozin “is unlikely to receive a label for any new indications,” she predicted. In contrast, the other drugs in the class have, for example, received a U.S. labeled indication to reduce cardiovascular death (empagliflozin) or major cardiovascular disease events (canagliflozin) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease, or to reduce heart failure hospitalizations (dapagliflozin).

The main results from VERTIS CV, posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine after the EASD session, showed a single significant outcome difference between treatment with ertugliflozin and placebo over a median of 3.0 years of follow-up from among 10 reported secondary outcomes: a 30% relative reduction (a 1.1% absolute reduction) in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure, the sole criterion in the report by which ertugliflozin matched the benefits of the other SGLT2 inhibitors.

But the prespecified design of VERTIS CV called for a hierarchical sequence of secondary analyses. The statistically significant noninferiority of the primary endpoint allowed calculation of the initial secondary endpoint, a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. Ertugliflozin treatment cut this outcome by a relative 12%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not significant.

This neutral finding brought to a stop further statistical testing of any of the other secondary endpoints, including impact on hospitalization for heart failure by itself. It also guaranteed that no beneficial effect inferred from the trial’s data would qualify for statistical validity, making it unlikely that ertugliflozin would gain any new label indications from these results. The drug carries a U.S. label that is limited to providing glycemic control.

Choosing among the SGLT2 inhibitors

“What we can say for sure is that there is a glycemic benefit and a heart failure hospitalization benefit” across all four of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “Beyond that, the best we can say today [about using these drugs in practice] is to follow regulatory indications and guidelines recommendations,” commented Javed Butler, MD, a cardiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“These results are going to lead to some serious discussions among the research, clinical, and regulatory communities about class effects versus drug effects, and specific trial data versus the totality of evidence,” he said in an interview.

“I think it will influence prescribing ertugliflozin, particularly in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or when the goal is to improve heart failure outcomes of reduce chronic kidney disease,” added Dr. Davies, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England). “We already have positive benefits [proven for these outcomes] using other agents in the class.”

Perhaps one feature potentially in ertugliflozin’s favor is its price, and whatever impact that might have for payers or patients with inadequate coverage for their drug costs. U.S. websites show a typical retail price for ertugliflozin that is roughly 40% below the three other agents in the class, a difference that can add up to an annual cost savings of about $2,500.

A major consideration for clinicians deciding which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe should be “what can the patient afford,” noted Darren K. McGuire, MD, a coinvestigator for VERTIS CV, during discussion of the trial at the EASD virtual meeting.
 

New analyses show more renal-effect consistency

One surprise in the initial VERTIS CV report was in the study’s key renal outcome, a composite of renal death, need for dialysis, or a doubling of the serum creatinine level, which reflects a cut of at least a 50% in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). This composite outcome trended toward a significant benefit but fell short, producing a nominal 19% relative reduction. This combined endpoint probably “set the bar too high,” said David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist who led the renal assessments run in the trial. He presented several exploratory analyses during the virtual EASD session that provided reassuring evidence that ertugliflozin was not an outlier among the SGLT2 inhibitors when it came to kidney benefits.

Perhaps the most compelling analysis he reported was a slight tweak to the main renal composite endpoint that substituted prevention of a 40% or greater reduction in eGFR for prevention of a 50% or greater reduction. By this somewhat lower bar for efficacy, treatment with ertugliflozin in VERTIS CV linked with a 34% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo (a roughly 1% absolute reduction) that was statistically significant, and importantly came out very close to the effect for this revised endpoint that had been seen for the other three SGLT2 inhibitor drugs.

Focusing on prevention of a 40% or greater drop in eGFR “gives a much more robust measure of renal protection,” Dr. Cherney, a clinician and researcher at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “The key message is that renal protection is much more uniform” with the rest of the drugs in the class when looked at this way or by some of the other alternative parameters he reported. But the new renal analyses do not address disparities seen among the drugs in the class for several cardiovascular disease effects.

“The overall impression from VERTIS CV is that there was less cardiovascular disease benefit,” except for prevention of heart failure hospitalization, he said.

A teaser for HFpEF

One additional notable new finding discussed during the EASD session stemmed from the investigators ability to mine the medical records of enrolled patients for information about their heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fractions, a data set that was “unique,” compared with the other cardiovascular outcome trials for the drugs in the class, noted Francesco Cosentino, MD, another VERTIS CV coinvestigator and professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Roughly a quarter of the enrolled patients had a history of heart failure, and about half of these patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, about 1,000 total patients. In this subgroup treatment with ertugliflozin linked with a 30% relative reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo, a roughly 0.5% absolute reduction. The numbers were small and underpowered for producing convincing evidence, but it provided an intriguing hint of benefit for an unmet need that is currently undergoing further testing in studies designed to specifically explore benefit in this type of heart failure patient, said Dr. Cosentino.

VERTIS CV was sponsored by Merck and Pfizer, the companies that market ertugliflozin. Dr. Davies has been a speaker on behalf of Merck and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Butler is a consultant to Merck and several other companies. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial support from Pfizer, and has had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cherney has received honoraria from Merck, nonfinancial research support from Pfizer, and has also had relationships with several other companies. Dr. Cosentino has received fees from Merck and Pfizer, and also from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk

[email protected]

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.

This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.

“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.

Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.

“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.

“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.

Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.

However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.

To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.

In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said

Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.

Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.

Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020. 

SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.

Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.

This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.

“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.

Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.

“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.

“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.

Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.

However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.

To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.

In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said

Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.

Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.

Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020. 

SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.

Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to rise in the United States, but unevenly so given how the incidence has become highest in the Hispanic population, which is reflected in increased rates in the southern and western states, Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances, which is jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

In addition to this demographic shift, the risk factors for HCC are shifting, he said. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been the dominant risk factor for HCC; for patients with active HCV, the factors historically associated with increased HCC risk have included alcohol consumption, obesity, diabetes, coinfection, and genetics, he said.

This pattern is starting to change. In fact, for patients with active HCV, antiviral treatment with a sustained virologic response has surfaced as the most significant risk factor in the development of HCC, said Dr. El-Serag: Among these patients, sustained virologic response from direct-acting antivirals is associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. However, it is important to recognize that a residual risk of HCC remains that doesn’t go away for several years, he noted.

“Who are those people who got treated, got cured, and still developed HCC? Those with cirrhosis at the time of treatment,” he said. Those with cirrhosis have cumulative incidence of 1.8% per year, but those without cirrhosis had very low risk, he said.

Some good news in HCC is that rates appear to be declining among young men, and this is thought to be one of the groups who are achieving a cure of HCV, he said.

“One would hope, if goals for HCV elimination are met, that will translate into massive reduction of HCC,” he said.

“The issue now for hepatitis is finding infected patients and curing them,” he noted.

Dr. El-Serag touched on hepatitis B (HBV), which continues to be the driving force of hepatitis infections globally. However, in patients who receive and respond to antiviral treatment “there is a significant and considerable reduction in HCC in the context of hepatitis B” similar to that seen with hepatitis C. Vaccination programs for HBV have started to make the desired impact of reducing HCC in HBV-endemic areas, he noted.

However, current risk factors for HCC are related less to HCV and HBV and more to metabolic syndrome because more people are treated for HCV and HBV, Dr. El-Serag said. He went on to address the new dominant global risk factor for HCC: obesity. Based on data from multiple studies, those who are obese, defined as a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², carry a twofold increased risk of developing HCC, he said.

To reduce this risk, treatment targets might address intermediate factors such as abdominal obesity, said Dr. El-Serag. He cited a study published in Hepatology in which individuals in the highest tertile for waist-hip ratio had a threefold higher risk of HCC, compared with those in the lowest tertile.

In addition, consideration of obesity must include type 2 diabetes, which is often linked to obesity and occurs in approximately one-third of adults in the United States, Dr. El-Serag said.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes may make a difference in HCC risk reduction, Dr. El-Serag noted. “The impact of treatment of diabetes on HCC risk is an area of intense interest,” he said. Based on the latest research, “the bottom line is that those treated with metformin experience a 50% reduction in the risk of HCC,” he said

Dr. El-Serag also acknowledged the impact of other risk factors for HCC: the use of statins and the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Dr. El-Serag noted that, among NAFLD patients, subgroups at even greater risk for HCC include those with diabetes, those older than 65 years, Hispanic race, and those with cirrhosis. These patients should be candidates for surveillance. Metabolic dysfunction traits such as obesity and diabetes are very common conditions, so it’s important to look at other, more specific factors, he added. “I hope that there will be tools to help clinicians classify or risk-stratify patients into different buckets,” he said.

Areas for further research on HCC continue to include risk stratification, mechanisms of action, and HCC prevention related to treatment of metabolic syndrome, he emphasized.

Dr. El-Serag had no financial conflicts to disclose. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

*This story was updated on Oct. 28, 2020. 

SOURCE: El-Serag HB. Digestive Diseases: New Advances 2020.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In September, an advisory board to the National Cancer Institute overwhelmingly voted to form a working group to review the continued funding and running of its largest cancer screening trial. But the lone abstaining board member suggested that the reevaluation was a smoke screen for ending the $100 million Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).

“We’re going to have a working group to kill the trial,” Peter Adamson, MD, of Sanofi, commented in an interpretation of the NCI’s intent. The randomized trial, which began enrolling women in 2017, is comparing tomosynthesis, or three-dimensional (3-D) mammography, with older, less expensive 2-D technology.

The NCI’s move to reevaluate TMIST comes 6 months after Medscape Medical News reported that the projected 165,000-women study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Enlisting sites is difficult, in part because radiologists – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior, commented two TMIST study investigators at that time.

Furthermore, experts who were quoted in the Medscape story said that radiology practice in the United States has substantially transitioned to 3-D and will continue to do so. This point was supported by a review of imaging market data.

At the September virtual meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, which was first reported by the Cancer Letter, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said it was “time to reevaluate TMIST’s feasibility and relevance.”

There is also a need to “examine the utility of TMIST, given the unanticipated challenges due to the pandemic,” he said, referring to low accrual of patients in 2020.

TMIST is “a huge budget item,” and accrual has been a problem “for years – essentially since the trial began,” added Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the NCI.

Fourteen advisory board members voted in favor of creating the working group to review the trial. The lone abstention, as noted above, was from Dr. Adamson, who is global head of oncology development and pediatric innovation at Sanofi and is also professor emeritus, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Adamson said that he was “not denying the impact” of COVID-19 but speculated that other clinical trials have had the same problem.

He also wondered whether COVID-19 was an “excuse” for bringing TMIST to a “public forum” and objected to the fact that TMIST investigators were not present and had not been invited to offer “an action plan” to remedy their trial’s woes.

Dr. Castle explained that COVID-19 had reduced TMIST’s monthly patient accrual by 50% from March to August, compared with recent preceding months. The underaccrual “will likely result in delayed outcomes and escalating costs.”

However, TMIST was staggeringly behind in accrual even before COVID-19. The trial has averaged less than 1,500 women a month over the past 2 years, yet it needed to average 5,500 a month to meet accrual goals, Dr. Castle noted.

Further, Dr. Castle suggested that TMIST’s contribution to mammography practice may be negligible, citing three factors: changes in the imaging market, earlier research results, and other ongoing major trials of 3-D mammography.

“[The] relevance of the [TMIST] data by the completion of the trial is uncertain because of 3-D market ... penetrance by the conclusion of the trial,” Dr. Castle said. Even with optimistic accrual projections, study completion and reporting would occur somewhere between 2029 and 2032 – not in 2025, as originally planned.

Currently, 68% of certified mammography facilities in the United States have one or more 3-D units, and 40% of all units are 3-D, he noted. (However, as previously reported, this latter statistic on total units is likely an undercount because all 3-D units have a built-in 2-D function, but the two components in a single machine are equally counted by the Food and Drug Administration – even when 3-D is exclusively used.)

Dr. Castle also summarized earlier observational and randomized trial data on tomosynthesis mammography: “Evidence is already available suggesting that 3-D is no worse and probably better than 2-D.”

Additionally, he reviewed three other European mammography trials involving 3-D technology (in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway) and said that they will contribute “additional informative data.”

Notably, Dr. Adamson did not object to these critical points but said the “approach” taken by the NCI advisory board at this meeting was “incredibly disturbing.”

Dr. Castle defended himself, saying “nowhere” in his presentation was there any mention that the trial would be “shut down.”

Dr. Sharpless then interjected: “There is no easy way to do this. TMIST is the most troubled of our trials [in prevention and screening] from an accrual point of view.”
 

TMIST investigators respond

A pair of TMIST investigators commented about the NCI’s planned reevaluation – and what it means.

Etta D. Pisano, MD, the study’s principal investigator, accented the positive: “We have heard nothing of suspending TMIST and are ready to work with NCI to reach TMIST endpoints more efficiently,” she said in an interview.

She also offered a positive spin on TMIST enrollment and trial site enlistment. “Enrollment quadrupled and trial sites doubled in the 14 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An unheard of 19% of the 30,000 women enrolled at 99 sites are African American.”

The trial has “momentum,” said Dr. Pisano, who is also chief research officer at the American College of Radiology.

Dr. Castle, however, noted that enrollment is far behind schedule; the 30,000 women who have been enrolled so far represent less than a quarter of the planned enrollment of 165,000 women, due by the end of 2020.

TMIST is designed to learn whether 3-D mammography is better at finding – and reducing the rate of – potentially lethal cancers than older 2-D technology.

Most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). This allows radiologists to flip through the images like pages in a book and is considered to offer a superior read of the breast.

TMIST uses “advanced” breast cancers as a novel surrogate outcome. The trial period is 4.5 years, during which women are screened annually to determine which imaging technology results in fewer advanced cancers. These include larger HER2-positive and triple-negative malignancies; those associated with positive nodes; and metastatic disease.

These malignancies correlate with breast cancer mortality, Dr. Pisano said.

“We need this trial to help us learn how to improve the process for identifying high-risk patients and how to utilize both of these technologies better,” said Mitchell Schnall, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania. He is cochair of the ECOG-ACRIN trial group, which is corunning TMIST.

“Look, we all know that 3-D sees more lesions, but consequently, more women are having additional procedures, including biopsies and excisions. The question that TMIST asks is whether that huge expenditure of time, money, and psychological stress is worth it in terms of better outcomes for each person who has the experience,” Dr. Schnall said in an interview.

“One size should not fit all in breast cancer screening, and the TMIST trial can show the way to a precision approach to screening,” he said.

But, earlier this year, Daniel Kopans, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that TMIST is a “huge waste of money.”

He believes that “radiologists who are experienced in using [3-D] for screening will not go back.

“It would be malpractice since they know there are cancers that they will miss on [2-D] that they can find on tomosynthesis,” said Dr. Kopans. He was involved in the development of the first 3-D unit but no longer profits from its sales because his group’s patent has expired.

TMIST was conceived before 3-D mammogram took off clinically, which may explain the trial’s enrollment and site participation woes. In the lag time between the initial trial design (2012) and study start date (2017), clinical practice in the United States and Canada shifted quickly to embrace the newer technology.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with multiple myeloma, triplet induction with novel agents beat doublet with regards to early results, according to Lalit Kumar, MD, and colleagues at the All India Institute of Medical sciences Myeloma Group, New Delhi.

The study analyzed 326 multiple myeloma patients who received high-dose, novel agent–based induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at a single institution, according to a report published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Between January 2005 and December 2018, 326 consecutive patients underwent high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant. The median age of the patients was 52 years; 66% were men, nearly 33% had Revised ISS III disease; almost 16% had high-risk cytogenetics and 23% underwent transplant in second remission after salvage therapy for relapse. A total of 194 patients (59.5%) received induction with two novel agents (thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 95; lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 63; bortezomib/dexamethasone, n = 36) and 132 (40.5%) received three drugs (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 53; bortezomib/liposomal doxorubicin/dexamethasone, n = 42; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 31; other n = 3).
 

Outcomes favorable

After transplant 227 (69.8%) patients achieved a complete response; 48 (14.7%) had a very good partial response, 32 (9.8%) had a partial response, and 9 (2.8%) patients had stable disease. Ten (3.1%) patients died of transplant-related complications (before day 100). Triplet induction beat doublet with regards to early response (95.4% vs. 84.02% [doublets], P < .003), stem cell mobilization (88.6% vs. 76.8%, P < .005) and lower day-100 transplant-related mortality (P < .001), However, at a median follow-up of 62.5 months, the median overall response rate (97.5 months triplet vs. 100.0 months doublet) and the median progression free survival (54.5 months vs. 57 months) were not statistically different between the two induction-treatment groups.

Patients who had undergone transplant in a recent period (2016-18) had a better outcome, compared with initial years, which possibly reflects a combined effect of learning curve, use of triplets, and gradual reduction in day-100 mortality, the authors stated.

“Whether newer regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies (associated with higher [complete response] rate and [minimal residual disease] negativity) would result in further improvement in survival, needs to be determined in future studies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar L et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Sep 18. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.08.021.

For patients with multiple myeloma, triplet induction with novel agents beat doublet with regards to early results, according to Lalit Kumar, MD, and colleagues at the All India Institute of Medical sciences Myeloma Group, New Delhi.

The study analyzed 326 multiple myeloma patients who received high-dose, novel agent–based induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at a single institution, according to a report published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Between January 2005 and December 2018, 326 consecutive patients underwent high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant. The median age of the patients was 52 years; 66% were men, nearly 33% had Revised ISS III disease; almost 16% had high-risk cytogenetics and 23% underwent transplant in second remission after salvage therapy for relapse. A total of 194 patients (59.5%) received induction with two novel agents (thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 95; lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 63; bortezomib/dexamethasone, n = 36) and 132 (40.5%) received three drugs (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 53; bortezomib/liposomal doxorubicin/dexamethasone, n = 42; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 31; other n = 3).
 

Outcomes favorable

After transplant 227 (69.8%) patients achieved a complete response; 48 (14.7%) had a very good partial response, 32 (9.8%) had a partial response, and 9 (2.8%) patients had stable disease. Ten (3.1%) patients died of transplant-related complications (before day 100). Triplet induction beat doublet with regards to early response (95.4% vs. 84.02% [doublets], P < .003), stem cell mobilization (88.6% vs. 76.8%, P < .005) and lower day-100 transplant-related mortality (P < .001), However, at a median follow-up of 62.5 months, the median overall response rate (97.5 months triplet vs. 100.0 months doublet) and the median progression free survival (54.5 months vs. 57 months) were not statistically different between the two induction-treatment groups.

Patients who had undergone transplant in a recent period (2016-18) had a better outcome, compared with initial years, which possibly reflects a combined effect of learning curve, use of triplets, and gradual reduction in day-100 mortality, the authors stated.

“Whether newer regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies (associated with higher [complete response] rate and [minimal residual disease] negativity) would result in further improvement in survival, needs to be determined in future studies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar L et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Sep 18. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.08.021.

For patients with multiple myeloma, triplet induction with novel agents beat doublet with regards to early results, according to Lalit Kumar, MD, and colleagues at the All India Institute of Medical sciences Myeloma Group, New Delhi.

The study analyzed 326 multiple myeloma patients who received high-dose, novel agent–based induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at a single institution, according to a report published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Between January 2005 and December 2018, 326 consecutive patients underwent high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant. The median age of the patients was 52 years; 66% were men, nearly 33% had Revised ISS III disease; almost 16% had high-risk cytogenetics and 23% underwent transplant in second remission after salvage therapy for relapse. A total of 194 patients (59.5%) received induction with two novel agents (thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 95; lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 63; bortezomib/dexamethasone, n = 36) and 132 (40.5%) received three drugs (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 53; bortezomib/liposomal doxorubicin/dexamethasone, n = 42; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 31; other n = 3).
 

Outcomes favorable

After transplant 227 (69.8%) patients achieved a complete response; 48 (14.7%) had a very good partial response, 32 (9.8%) had a partial response, and 9 (2.8%) patients had stable disease. Ten (3.1%) patients died of transplant-related complications (before day 100). Triplet induction beat doublet with regards to early response (95.4% vs. 84.02% [doublets], P < .003), stem cell mobilization (88.6% vs. 76.8%, P < .005) and lower day-100 transplant-related mortality (P < .001), However, at a median follow-up of 62.5 months, the median overall response rate (97.5 months triplet vs. 100.0 months doublet) and the median progression free survival (54.5 months vs. 57 months) were not statistically different between the two induction-treatment groups.

Patients who had undergone transplant in a recent period (2016-18) had a better outcome, compared with initial years, which possibly reflects a combined effect of learning curve, use of triplets, and gradual reduction in day-100 mortality, the authors stated.

“Whether newer regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies (associated with higher [complete response] rate and [minimal residual disease] negativity) would result in further improvement in survival, needs to be determined in future studies,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar L et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Sep 18. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.08.021.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is already approved for use in the treatment of esophageal cancer, but in the second-line setting.

New results show that it also improves outcomes when used in the first-line setting, and the investigators suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy should be the new standard of care.

The results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-590 trial, conducted with 740 patients who had advanced cancers of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The patients were followed for a median of 10.8 months.

The findings show that the combination offered patients a modest but distinct survival benefit over chemotherapy alone.

Median overall survival (OS), one of two primary endpoints for the trial, was 12.4 months for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 9.8 months for patients who received chemotherapy plus placebo.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with pembrolizumab of 0.73 (P < .0001), reported Peter Enzinger, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Progression-free survival (PFS), the trial’s other primary endpoint, was superior with the combination, at a median of 6.3 months compared with 5.8 months for chemotherapy alone, translating into an HR for progression with pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P < .0001).

“Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should be a new standard of care as first-line therapy in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer, including the EGJ, regardless of the histology and biomarker status,” Enzinger concluded.

He was speaking at a press briefing prior to a presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020. (The data were presented in oral session by Ken Kato, MD, from the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.)
 

Little change in treatment

“Unfortunately, for esophageal cancer, the standard of care has remained relatively unchanged for a long period of time,” Enzinger said.

Standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced esophageal, EGJ, or gastric adenocarcinoma is primarily a chemotherapy doublet consisting of a fluoropyrimidine plus a platinum agent.

Pembrolizumab was previously shown to have some activity as monotherapy against advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in the third line in the KEYNOTE-180 trial. It yielded an overall response rate (ORR) of 14%. A median duration of response was not reached among patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and tumors with programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) that had combined positive scores (CPSs) of 10 or higher.

Another previous trial, KEYNOTE-181, showed that pembrolizumab monotherapy in the second line was associated with an ORR of 22% vs 7% for chemotherapy and respective median OS of 10.3 vs 6.7 months. This trial led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic ESCC with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 who have experienced disease progression after at least one prior line of therapy.

The trial now being reported, KEYNOTE-590, assessed use of the drug in the first-line setting. It was designed to see whether combining standard-of-care chemotherapy with pembrolizumab would improve outcomes.
 

Study details

Patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with 5-fluorauracil (5-FU) 800 mg/m² intravenously on days 1–5 every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles and cisplatin 80 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, plus either pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or saline placebo IV.

Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were similar between study arms, occurring in 71.9% with the combination and in 67.6% with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively. Fatal adverse events occurred in 2.4% of patients who received the combination and in 1.4% of patients who received chemotherapy and placebo.

Immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3 or higher and infusion reactions occurred in 7% and 2.2% of patients, respectively.

Patient-reported quality of life was similar between the groups.
 

Mixed histologies muddy results

The improvement in OS was observed across all patient populations, including patients with ESCC, esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and EGJ tumors, the researchers noted.

However, invited discussant Andres Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, commented that ESCC and EAC have very different histologies and that including patients with both in a single trial can make the results very confusing.

He pointed out that, in the KEYNOTE-590 population, 73% of patients had ESCCs and 27% had EACs.

The OS improvement was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although the best results occurred in patients with high expression.

However, Cervantes noted that PD-L1 expression was not used as a stratification factor prior to randomization, even though it was included in the complex, step-wise statistical plan for the study.

Another expert, Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, from the Krankenhaus Nordwest in Frankfurt, Germany, questioned the researchers’ recommendation that all patients with esophageal cancer receive this regimen, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high [PD-L1] expressers,” he said at the press briefing.

He said the trial report also leaves open the question of efficacy in tumors with microsatellite instability and/or high tumor mutational burden.

“I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat a patient sitting in front of us as doctors,” he said.

Also adding to the concerns about this trial is the fact that the “selected chemotherapy schedule is not much currently used as the standard of care,” said Cervantes, although he added that it “is acceptable for this protocol.”

Despite these caveats, the trial was clearly positive, Cervantes said. The greatest benefit appeared to accrue for patients with ESCC.

“The addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increases response rate, PFS, and OS in patients with advanced esophageal carcinomas over chemotherapy alone,” he said, and therefore he agreed with the investigators that “this is a new standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Enzinger disclosed honoraria and advisory or consulting roles for Merck and others. Cervantes disclosed consulting or advising and research funding from Merck Serono and others. He is president-elect of ESMO. Al-Batran has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is already approved for use in the treatment of esophageal cancer, but in the second-line setting.

New results show that it also improves outcomes when used in the first-line setting, and the investigators suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy should be the new standard of care.

The results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-590 trial, conducted with 740 patients who had advanced cancers of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The patients were followed for a median of 10.8 months.

The findings show that the combination offered patients a modest but distinct survival benefit over chemotherapy alone.

Median overall survival (OS), one of two primary endpoints for the trial, was 12.4 months for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 9.8 months for patients who received chemotherapy plus placebo.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with pembrolizumab of 0.73 (P < .0001), reported Peter Enzinger, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Progression-free survival (PFS), the trial’s other primary endpoint, was superior with the combination, at a median of 6.3 months compared with 5.8 months for chemotherapy alone, translating into an HR for progression with pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P < .0001).

“Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should be a new standard of care as first-line therapy in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer, including the EGJ, regardless of the histology and biomarker status,” Enzinger concluded.

He was speaking at a press briefing prior to a presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020. (The data were presented in oral session by Ken Kato, MD, from the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.)
 

Little change in treatment

“Unfortunately, for esophageal cancer, the standard of care has remained relatively unchanged for a long period of time,” Enzinger said.

Standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced esophageal, EGJ, or gastric adenocarcinoma is primarily a chemotherapy doublet consisting of a fluoropyrimidine plus a platinum agent.

Pembrolizumab was previously shown to have some activity as monotherapy against advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in the third line in the KEYNOTE-180 trial. It yielded an overall response rate (ORR) of 14%. A median duration of response was not reached among patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and tumors with programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) that had combined positive scores (CPSs) of 10 or higher.

Another previous trial, KEYNOTE-181, showed that pembrolizumab monotherapy in the second line was associated with an ORR of 22% vs 7% for chemotherapy and respective median OS of 10.3 vs 6.7 months. This trial led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic ESCC with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 who have experienced disease progression after at least one prior line of therapy.

The trial now being reported, KEYNOTE-590, assessed use of the drug in the first-line setting. It was designed to see whether combining standard-of-care chemotherapy with pembrolizumab would improve outcomes.
 

Study details

Patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with 5-fluorauracil (5-FU) 800 mg/m² intravenously on days 1–5 every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles and cisplatin 80 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, plus either pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or saline placebo IV.

Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were similar between study arms, occurring in 71.9% with the combination and in 67.6% with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively. Fatal adverse events occurred in 2.4% of patients who received the combination and in 1.4% of patients who received chemotherapy and placebo.

Immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3 or higher and infusion reactions occurred in 7% and 2.2% of patients, respectively.

Patient-reported quality of life was similar between the groups.
 

Mixed histologies muddy results

The improvement in OS was observed across all patient populations, including patients with ESCC, esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and EGJ tumors, the researchers noted.

However, invited discussant Andres Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, commented that ESCC and EAC have very different histologies and that including patients with both in a single trial can make the results very confusing.

He pointed out that, in the KEYNOTE-590 population, 73% of patients had ESCCs and 27% had EACs.

The OS improvement was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although the best results occurred in patients with high expression.

However, Cervantes noted that PD-L1 expression was not used as a stratification factor prior to randomization, even though it was included in the complex, step-wise statistical plan for the study.

Another expert, Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, from the Krankenhaus Nordwest in Frankfurt, Germany, questioned the researchers’ recommendation that all patients with esophageal cancer receive this regimen, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high [PD-L1] expressers,” he said at the press briefing.

He said the trial report also leaves open the question of efficacy in tumors with microsatellite instability and/or high tumor mutational burden.

“I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat a patient sitting in front of us as doctors,” he said.

Also adding to the concerns about this trial is the fact that the “selected chemotherapy schedule is not much currently used as the standard of care,” said Cervantes, although he added that it “is acceptable for this protocol.”

Despite these caveats, the trial was clearly positive, Cervantes said. The greatest benefit appeared to accrue for patients with ESCC.

“The addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increases response rate, PFS, and OS in patients with advanced esophageal carcinomas over chemotherapy alone,” he said, and therefore he agreed with the investigators that “this is a new standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Enzinger disclosed honoraria and advisory or consulting roles for Merck and others. Cervantes disclosed consulting or advising and research funding from Merck Serono and others. He is president-elect of ESMO. Al-Batran has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is already approved for use in the treatment of esophageal cancer, but in the second-line setting.

New results show that it also improves outcomes when used in the first-line setting, and the investigators suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy should be the new standard of care.

The results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-590 trial, conducted with 740 patients who had advanced cancers of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The patients were followed for a median of 10.8 months.

The findings show that the combination offered patients a modest but distinct survival benefit over chemotherapy alone.

Median overall survival (OS), one of two primary endpoints for the trial, was 12.4 months for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 9.8 months for patients who received chemotherapy plus placebo.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with pembrolizumab of 0.73 (P < .0001), reported Peter Enzinger, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Progression-free survival (PFS), the trial’s other primary endpoint, was superior with the combination, at a median of 6.3 months compared with 5.8 months for chemotherapy alone, translating into an HR for progression with pembrolizumab of 0.65 (P < .0001).

“Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should be a new standard of care as first-line therapy in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer, including the EGJ, regardless of the histology and biomarker status,” Enzinger concluded.

He was speaking at a press briefing prior to a presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Virtual Congress 2020. (The data were presented in oral session by Ken Kato, MD, from the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.)
 

Little change in treatment

“Unfortunately, for esophageal cancer, the standard of care has remained relatively unchanged for a long period of time,” Enzinger said.

Standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced esophageal, EGJ, or gastric adenocarcinoma is primarily a chemotherapy doublet consisting of a fluoropyrimidine plus a platinum agent.

Pembrolizumab was previously shown to have some activity as monotherapy against advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in the third line in the KEYNOTE-180 trial. It yielded an overall response rate (ORR) of 14%. A median duration of response was not reached among patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and tumors with programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) that had combined positive scores (CPSs) of 10 or higher.

Another previous trial, KEYNOTE-181, showed that pembrolizumab monotherapy in the second line was associated with an ORR of 22% vs 7% for chemotherapy and respective median OS of 10.3 vs 6.7 months. This trial led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic ESCC with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 who have experienced disease progression after at least one prior line of therapy.

The trial now being reported, KEYNOTE-590, assessed use of the drug in the first-line setting. It was designed to see whether combining standard-of-care chemotherapy with pembrolizumab would improve outcomes.
 

Study details

Patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with 5-fluorauracil (5-FU) 800 mg/m² intravenously on days 1–5 every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles and cisplatin 80 mg/m² IV every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, plus either pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or saline placebo IV.

Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were similar between study arms, occurring in 71.9% with the combination and in 67.6% with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively. Fatal adverse events occurred in 2.4% of patients who received the combination and in 1.4% of patients who received chemotherapy and placebo.

Immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3 or higher and infusion reactions occurred in 7% and 2.2% of patients, respectively.

Patient-reported quality of life was similar between the groups.
 

Mixed histologies muddy results

The improvement in OS was observed across all patient populations, including patients with ESCC, esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and EGJ tumors, the researchers noted.

However, invited discussant Andres Cervantes, MD, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Spain, commented that ESCC and EAC have very different histologies and that including patients with both in a single trial can make the results very confusing.

He pointed out that, in the KEYNOTE-590 population, 73% of patients had ESCCs and 27% had EACs.

The OS improvement was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although the best results occurred in patients with high expression.

However, Cervantes noted that PD-L1 expression was not used as a stratification factor prior to randomization, even though it was included in the complex, step-wise statistical plan for the study.

Another expert, Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, from the Krankenhaus Nordwest in Frankfurt, Germany, questioned the researchers’ recommendation that all patients with esophageal cancer receive this regimen, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

“We have to be sure that we do not inflate the results for the all-comers by the very responsive group of high [PD-L1] expressers,” he said at the press briefing.

He said the trial report also leaves open the question of efficacy in tumors with microsatellite instability and/or high tumor mutational burden.

“I think these questions have to be addressed to give us a clear picture of how to treat a patient sitting in front of us as doctors,” he said.

Also adding to the concerns about this trial is the fact that the “selected chemotherapy schedule is not much currently used as the standard of care,” said Cervantes, although he added that it “is acceptable for this protocol.”

Despite these caveats, the trial was clearly positive, Cervantes said. The greatest benefit appeared to accrue for patients with ESCC.

“The addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increases response rate, PFS, and OS in patients with advanced esophageal carcinomas over chemotherapy alone,” he said, and therefore he agreed with the investigators that “this is a new standard of care.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Enzinger disclosed honoraria and advisory or consulting roles for Merck and others. Cervantes disclosed consulting or advising and research funding from Merck Serono and others. He is president-elect of ESMO. Al-Batran has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

America has been struggling to understand its racial dynamics since the arrival of enslaved Africans more than 400 years ago. Today, with much of the world more polarized than ever, and certainly in our United States, there is a need for something to shift us from our fear and survival paranoid schizoid (us-vs.-them) position to an integrated form if we are to come out of this unusual democratic and societal unrest whole.

Courtesy Random House

Yet, we’ve never had the lexicon to adequately describe the sociopolitical dynamics rooted in race and racism and their power to shape the thinking of all who originate in this country and all who enter its self-made borders whether forcefully or voluntarily. Enter Isabel Wilkerson, a Pulitzer Prize–winning, former New York Times Chicago bureau chief, and author of “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration” (New York: Random House, 2010) with her second book, “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” (New York: Random House, 2020).

Ms. Wilkerson quickly gets to work in an engaging storytelling style of weaving past to present with ideas she supports with letters from the past, historians’ impressions, research studies, and data. Her observations and research are bookended by the lead up to the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath on the one end, and the impending 2020 presidential election on the other. In her view, the reemergence of violence that has accelerated in the 21st century and the renewed commitment to promote white supremacy can be understood if we expand our view of race and racism to consider the enduring power of caste. For, in Ms. Wilkerson’s view, the fear of the 2042 U.S. census (which is predicted to reflect for the first time a non-White majority) is a driving force behind the dominant caste’s determination to maintain the status quo power dynamics in the United States.

In an effort to explain American’s racial hierarchy, Ms. Wilkerson explains the need for a new lexicon “that may sound like a foreign language,” but this is intentional on her part. She writes:

“To recalibrate how we see ourselves, I use language that may be more commonly associated with people in other cultures, to suggest a new way of understanding our hierarchy: Dominant caste, ruling majority, favored caste, or upper caste, instead of, or in addition to, white. Middle castes instead of, or in addition to, Asian or Latino. Subordinate caste, lowest caste, bottom caste, disfavored caste, historically stigmatized instead of African-American. Original, conquered, or indigenous peoples instead of, or in addition to, Native American. Marginalized people in addition to, or instead of, women of any race, or minorities of any kind.”

Early in the book Ms. Wilkerson anchors her argument in Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s sojourn to India. Rather than focus on the known history of Dr. King’s admiration of Mohandas Gandhi, Ms. Wilkerson directs our attention to Dr. King’s discovery of his connection to Dalits, those who had been considered “untouchables” until Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Indian economist, jurist, social reformer, and Dalit leader, fiercely and successfully advocated for a rebranding of his caste of origin; instead of “untouchables” they would be considered Dalits or “broken people.” Dr. King did not meet Mr. Ambedkar, who died 3 years before this journey, but Ms. Wilkerson writes that Dr. King acknowledged the kinship, “And he said unto himself, Yes, I am an untouchable, and every Negro in the United States is an untouchable.” The Dalits and Dr. King recognized in each other their shared positions as subordinates in a global caste system.

In answering the question about the difference between racism and casteism, Ms. Wilkerson writes:

“Because caste and race are interwoven in America, it can be hard to separate the two. ... Casteism is the investment in keeping the hierarchy as it is in order to maintain your own ranking, advantage, privilege, or to elevate yourself above others or to keep others beneath you.”

Reading “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” is akin to the experience of gaining relief after struggling for years with a chronic malady that has a fluctuating course: Under the surface is low-grade pain that is compartmentalized and often met with denial or gaslighting when symptoms and systems are reported to members of the dominant caste. Yet, when there are acute flare-ups and increasingly frequent deadly encounters, the defenses of denial are painfully revealed; structures are broken and sometimes burned down. This has been the clinical course of racism, particularly in the United States. In that vein, an early reaction while reading “Caste” might be comparable to hearing an interpretation that educates, clarifies, resonates, and lands perfectly on the right diagnosis at the right moment.
 

Approach proves clarifying

In conceptualizing the malady as one of caste, Ms. Wilkerson achieves several things simultaneously – she names the malady, thus providing a lexicon, describes its symptoms, and most importantly, in our opinion, shares some of the compelling data from her field studies. By focusing on India, Nazi Germany, and the United States, she describes how easily one system influences another in the global effort to maintain power among the privileged.

This is not a new way of conceptualizing racial hierarchy; however, what is truly persuasive is Ms. Wilkerson’s ability to weave her rigorous research, sociopolitical analysis, and cogent psychological insights and interpretations to explain the 400-year trajectory of racialized caste in the United States. She achieves this exigent task with beautiful prose that motivates the reader to return time and time again to learn gut-wrenching painful historical details. She summarizes truths that have been unearthed (again) about Germany, India, and, in particular, the United States during her research and travels around the world. In doing so, she provides vivid examples of racism layered on caste. Consider the following:

“The Nazis were impressed by the American custom of lynching its subordinate caste of African-Americans, having become aware of the ritual torture and mutilations that typically accompanied them. Hitler especially marveled at the American ‘knack for maintaining an air of robust innocence in the wake of mass death.’ ” Ms. Wilkerson informs us that Hitler sent emissaries to study America’s Jim Crow system and then imported some features to orchestrate the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Her most vivid example of internalized casteism is the experience of a Dalit scholar who still experiences anxiety and a corresponding sense of inadequacy in the presence of someone who is considered to be from a higher caste.

A painful account of interpersonal racism is captured as Ms. Wilkerson recounts her experience after a routine business flight from Chicago to Detroit. She details her difficulty leaving a rental car parking lot because she had become so disoriented after being profiled and accosted by Drug Enforcement Administration agents who had intercepted her in the airport terminal and followed her onto the airport shuttle bus as she attempted to reach her destination. She provides a description of “getting turned around in a parking lot that I had been to dozens of times, going in circles, not able to get out, not registering the signs to the exit, not seeing how to get to Interstate 94, when I knew full well how to get to I-94 after all the times I’d driven it. ... This was the thievery of caste, stealing the time and psychic resources of the marginalized, draining energy in an already uphill competition. They were not, like me, frozen and disoriented, trying to make sense of a public violation that seemed all the more menacing now that I could see it in full. The quiet mundanity of that terror has never left me, the scars outliving the cut.”

This account is consistent with the dissociative, disorienting dynamics of race-based trauma. Her experience is not uncommon and helps to explain the activism of those in the subordinate caste who have attained some measure of wealth, power, and influence, and are motivated to expend their resources (energy, time, fame, and/or wealth) to raise awareness about social and political injustices by calling out structural racism in medicine, protesting police use of force by taking a knee, boycotting sporting events, and even demanding that football stadiums be used as polling sites. At the end of the day, all of us who have “made it” know that when we leave our homes, our relegation to the subordinate caste determines how we are perceived and what landmines we must navigate to make it through the day and that determine whether we will make it home.

This tour de force work of art has the potential to be a game changer in the way that we think about racial polarization in the United States. It is hoped that this new language opens up a space that allows each of us to explore this hegemony while identifying our placement and actions we take to maintain it, for each of us undeniably has a position in this caste system.

Having this new lexicon summons to mind the reactions of patients who gain immediate relief from having their illnesses named. In the case of the U.S. malady that has gripped us all, Ms. Wilkerson reiterates the importance of naming the condition. She writes:

“Because, to truly understand America, we must open our eyes to the hidden work of a caste system that has gone unnamed but prevails among us to our collective detriment, to see that we have more in common with each other and with cultures that we might otherwise dismiss, and to summon the courage to consider that therein may lie the answers.”

The naming allows both doctor and patient to have greater insight, understanding its origins and course, as well as having hope that there is a remedy. Naming facilitates the space for a shift in thinking and implementation of treatment protocols, such as Nazi Germany’s “zero tolerance policy” of swastikas in comparison to the ongoing U.S. controversy about the display of Confederate symbols. At this point in history, we welcome a diagnosis that has the potential to shift us from these poles of dominant and subordinate, black and white, good and bad, toward integration and wholeness of the individual psyche and collective global community. This is similar to what Melanie Klein calls the depressive position. Ms. Wilkerson suggests, in relinquishing these polar splits, we increase our capacity to shift to a space where our psychic integration occurs and our inextricable interdependence and responsibility for one another are honored.
 

Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University. She is interested in the management of “difference” – race, gender, ethnicity, and intersectionality – in dyadic relationships and group dynamics; and the impact of racism on interpersonal relationships in institutional structures. Dr. Dunlap practices in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Dennis is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst. Her interests are in gender and ethnic diversity, health equity, and supervision and training. Dr. Dennis practices in Washington and has no disclosures.

America has been struggling to understand its racial dynamics since the arrival of enslaved Africans more than 400 years ago. Today, with much of the world more polarized than ever, and certainly in our United States, there is a need for something to shift us from our fear and survival paranoid schizoid (us-vs.-them) position to an integrated form if we are to come out of this unusual democratic and societal unrest whole.

Courtesy Random House

Yet, we’ve never had the lexicon to adequately describe the sociopolitical dynamics rooted in race and racism and their power to shape the thinking of all who originate in this country and all who enter its self-made borders whether forcefully or voluntarily. Enter Isabel Wilkerson, a Pulitzer Prize–winning, former New York Times Chicago bureau chief, and author of “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration” (New York: Random House, 2010) with her second book, “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” (New York: Random House, 2020).

Ms. Wilkerson quickly gets to work in an engaging storytelling style of weaving past to present with ideas she supports with letters from the past, historians’ impressions, research studies, and data. Her observations and research are bookended by the lead up to the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath on the one end, and the impending 2020 presidential election on the other. In her view, the reemergence of violence that has accelerated in the 21st century and the renewed commitment to promote white supremacy can be understood if we expand our view of race and racism to consider the enduring power of caste. For, in Ms. Wilkerson’s view, the fear of the 2042 U.S. census (which is predicted to reflect for the first time a non-White majority) is a driving force behind the dominant caste’s determination to maintain the status quo power dynamics in the United States.

In an effort to explain American’s racial hierarchy, Ms. Wilkerson explains the need for a new lexicon “that may sound like a foreign language,” but this is intentional on her part. She writes:

“To recalibrate how we see ourselves, I use language that may be more commonly associated with people in other cultures, to suggest a new way of understanding our hierarchy: Dominant caste, ruling majority, favored caste, or upper caste, instead of, or in addition to, white. Middle castes instead of, or in addition to, Asian or Latino. Subordinate caste, lowest caste, bottom caste, disfavored caste, historically stigmatized instead of African-American. Original, conquered, or indigenous peoples instead of, or in addition to, Native American. Marginalized people in addition to, or instead of, women of any race, or minorities of any kind.”

Early in the book Ms. Wilkerson anchors her argument in Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s sojourn to India. Rather than focus on the known history of Dr. King’s admiration of Mohandas Gandhi, Ms. Wilkerson directs our attention to Dr. King’s discovery of his connection to Dalits, those who had been considered “untouchables” until Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Indian economist, jurist, social reformer, and Dalit leader, fiercely and successfully advocated for a rebranding of his caste of origin; instead of “untouchables” they would be considered Dalits or “broken people.” Dr. King did not meet Mr. Ambedkar, who died 3 years before this journey, but Ms. Wilkerson writes that Dr. King acknowledged the kinship, “And he said unto himself, Yes, I am an untouchable, and every Negro in the United States is an untouchable.” The Dalits and Dr. King recognized in each other their shared positions as subordinates in a global caste system.

In answering the question about the difference between racism and casteism, Ms. Wilkerson writes:

“Because caste and race are interwoven in America, it can be hard to separate the two. ... Casteism is the investment in keeping the hierarchy as it is in order to maintain your own ranking, advantage, privilege, or to elevate yourself above others or to keep others beneath you.”

Reading “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” is akin to the experience of gaining relief after struggling for years with a chronic malady that has a fluctuating course: Under the surface is low-grade pain that is compartmentalized and often met with denial or gaslighting when symptoms and systems are reported to members of the dominant caste. Yet, when there are acute flare-ups and increasingly frequent deadly encounters, the defenses of denial are painfully revealed; structures are broken and sometimes burned down. This has been the clinical course of racism, particularly in the United States. In that vein, an early reaction while reading “Caste” might be comparable to hearing an interpretation that educates, clarifies, resonates, and lands perfectly on the right diagnosis at the right moment.
 

Approach proves clarifying

In conceptualizing the malady as one of caste, Ms. Wilkerson achieves several things simultaneously – she names the malady, thus providing a lexicon, describes its symptoms, and most importantly, in our opinion, shares some of the compelling data from her field studies. By focusing on India, Nazi Germany, and the United States, she describes how easily one system influences another in the global effort to maintain power among the privileged.

This is not a new way of conceptualizing racial hierarchy; however, what is truly persuasive is Ms. Wilkerson’s ability to weave her rigorous research, sociopolitical analysis, and cogent psychological insights and interpretations to explain the 400-year trajectory of racialized caste in the United States. She achieves this exigent task with beautiful prose that motivates the reader to return time and time again to learn gut-wrenching painful historical details. She summarizes truths that have been unearthed (again) about Germany, India, and, in particular, the United States during her research and travels around the world. In doing so, she provides vivid examples of racism layered on caste. Consider the following:

“The Nazis were impressed by the American custom of lynching its subordinate caste of African-Americans, having become aware of the ritual torture and mutilations that typically accompanied them. Hitler especially marveled at the American ‘knack for maintaining an air of robust innocence in the wake of mass death.’ ” Ms. Wilkerson informs us that Hitler sent emissaries to study America’s Jim Crow system and then imported some features to orchestrate the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Her most vivid example of internalized casteism is the experience of a Dalit scholar who still experiences anxiety and a corresponding sense of inadequacy in the presence of someone who is considered to be from a higher caste.

A painful account of interpersonal racism is captured as Ms. Wilkerson recounts her experience after a routine business flight from Chicago to Detroit. She details her difficulty leaving a rental car parking lot because she had become so disoriented after being profiled and accosted by Drug Enforcement Administration agents who had intercepted her in the airport terminal and followed her onto the airport shuttle bus as she attempted to reach her destination. She provides a description of “getting turned around in a parking lot that I had been to dozens of times, going in circles, not able to get out, not registering the signs to the exit, not seeing how to get to Interstate 94, when I knew full well how to get to I-94 after all the times I’d driven it. ... This was the thievery of caste, stealing the time and psychic resources of the marginalized, draining energy in an already uphill competition. They were not, like me, frozen and disoriented, trying to make sense of a public violation that seemed all the more menacing now that I could see it in full. The quiet mundanity of that terror has never left me, the scars outliving the cut.”

This account is consistent with the dissociative, disorienting dynamics of race-based trauma. Her experience is not uncommon and helps to explain the activism of those in the subordinate caste who have attained some measure of wealth, power, and influence, and are motivated to expend their resources (energy, time, fame, and/or wealth) to raise awareness about social and political injustices by calling out structural racism in medicine, protesting police use of force by taking a knee, boycotting sporting events, and even demanding that football stadiums be used as polling sites. At the end of the day, all of us who have “made it” know that when we leave our homes, our relegation to the subordinate caste determines how we are perceived and what landmines we must navigate to make it through the day and that determine whether we will make it home.

This tour de force work of art has the potential to be a game changer in the way that we think about racial polarization in the United States. It is hoped that this new language opens up a space that allows each of us to explore this hegemony while identifying our placement and actions we take to maintain it, for each of us undeniably has a position in this caste system.

Having this new lexicon summons to mind the reactions of patients who gain immediate relief from having their illnesses named. In the case of the U.S. malady that has gripped us all, Ms. Wilkerson reiterates the importance of naming the condition. She writes:

“Because, to truly understand America, we must open our eyes to the hidden work of a caste system that has gone unnamed but prevails among us to our collective detriment, to see that we have more in common with each other and with cultures that we might otherwise dismiss, and to summon the courage to consider that therein may lie the answers.”

The naming allows both doctor and patient to have greater insight, understanding its origins and course, as well as having hope that there is a remedy. Naming facilitates the space for a shift in thinking and implementation of treatment protocols, such as Nazi Germany’s “zero tolerance policy” of swastikas in comparison to the ongoing U.S. controversy about the display of Confederate symbols. At this point in history, we welcome a diagnosis that has the potential to shift us from these poles of dominant and subordinate, black and white, good and bad, toward integration and wholeness of the individual psyche and collective global community. This is similar to what Melanie Klein calls the depressive position. Ms. Wilkerson suggests, in relinquishing these polar splits, we increase our capacity to shift to a space where our psychic integration occurs and our inextricable interdependence and responsibility for one another are honored.
 

Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University. She is interested in the management of “difference” – race, gender, ethnicity, and intersectionality – in dyadic relationships and group dynamics; and the impact of racism on interpersonal relationships in institutional structures. Dr. Dunlap practices in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Dennis is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst. Her interests are in gender and ethnic diversity, health equity, and supervision and training. Dr. Dennis practices in Washington and has no disclosures.

America has been struggling to understand its racial dynamics since the arrival of enslaved Africans more than 400 years ago. Today, with much of the world more polarized than ever, and certainly in our United States, there is a need for something to shift us from our fear and survival paranoid schizoid (us-vs.-them) position to an integrated form if we are to come out of this unusual democratic and societal unrest whole.

Courtesy Random House

Yet, we’ve never had the lexicon to adequately describe the sociopolitical dynamics rooted in race and racism and their power to shape the thinking of all who originate in this country and all who enter its self-made borders whether forcefully or voluntarily. Enter Isabel Wilkerson, a Pulitzer Prize–winning, former New York Times Chicago bureau chief, and author of “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration” (New York: Random House, 2010) with her second book, “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” (New York: Random House, 2020).

Ms. Wilkerson quickly gets to work in an engaging storytelling style of weaving past to present with ideas she supports with letters from the past, historians’ impressions, research studies, and data. Her observations and research are bookended by the lead up to the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath on the one end, and the impending 2020 presidential election on the other. In her view, the reemergence of violence that has accelerated in the 21st century and the renewed commitment to promote white supremacy can be understood if we expand our view of race and racism to consider the enduring power of caste. For, in Ms. Wilkerson’s view, the fear of the 2042 U.S. census (which is predicted to reflect for the first time a non-White majority) is a driving force behind the dominant caste’s determination to maintain the status quo power dynamics in the United States.

In an effort to explain American’s racial hierarchy, Ms. Wilkerson explains the need for a new lexicon “that may sound like a foreign language,” but this is intentional on her part. She writes:

“To recalibrate how we see ourselves, I use language that may be more commonly associated with people in other cultures, to suggest a new way of understanding our hierarchy: Dominant caste, ruling majority, favored caste, or upper caste, instead of, or in addition to, white. Middle castes instead of, or in addition to, Asian or Latino. Subordinate caste, lowest caste, bottom caste, disfavored caste, historically stigmatized instead of African-American. Original, conquered, or indigenous peoples instead of, or in addition to, Native American. Marginalized people in addition to, or instead of, women of any race, or minorities of any kind.”

Early in the book Ms. Wilkerson anchors her argument in Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s sojourn to India. Rather than focus on the known history of Dr. King’s admiration of Mohandas Gandhi, Ms. Wilkerson directs our attention to Dr. King’s discovery of his connection to Dalits, those who had been considered “untouchables” until Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Indian economist, jurist, social reformer, and Dalit leader, fiercely and successfully advocated for a rebranding of his caste of origin; instead of “untouchables” they would be considered Dalits or “broken people.” Dr. King did not meet Mr. Ambedkar, who died 3 years before this journey, but Ms. Wilkerson writes that Dr. King acknowledged the kinship, “And he said unto himself, Yes, I am an untouchable, and every Negro in the United States is an untouchable.” The Dalits and Dr. King recognized in each other their shared positions as subordinates in a global caste system.

In answering the question about the difference between racism and casteism, Ms. Wilkerson writes:

“Because caste and race are interwoven in America, it can be hard to separate the two. ... Casteism is the investment in keeping the hierarchy as it is in order to maintain your own ranking, advantage, privilege, or to elevate yourself above others or to keep others beneath you.”

Reading “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” is akin to the experience of gaining relief after struggling for years with a chronic malady that has a fluctuating course: Under the surface is low-grade pain that is compartmentalized and often met with denial or gaslighting when symptoms and systems are reported to members of the dominant caste. Yet, when there are acute flare-ups and increasingly frequent deadly encounters, the defenses of denial are painfully revealed; structures are broken and sometimes burned down. This has been the clinical course of racism, particularly in the United States. In that vein, an early reaction while reading “Caste” might be comparable to hearing an interpretation that educates, clarifies, resonates, and lands perfectly on the right diagnosis at the right moment.
 

Approach proves clarifying

In conceptualizing the malady as one of caste, Ms. Wilkerson achieves several things simultaneously – she names the malady, thus providing a lexicon, describes its symptoms, and most importantly, in our opinion, shares some of the compelling data from her field studies. By focusing on India, Nazi Germany, and the United States, she describes how easily one system influences another in the global effort to maintain power among the privileged.

This is not a new way of conceptualizing racial hierarchy; however, what is truly persuasive is Ms. Wilkerson’s ability to weave her rigorous research, sociopolitical analysis, and cogent psychological insights and interpretations to explain the 400-year trajectory of racialized caste in the United States. She achieves this exigent task with beautiful prose that motivates the reader to return time and time again to learn gut-wrenching painful historical details. She summarizes truths that have been unearthed (again) about Germany, India, and, in particular, the United States during her research and travels around the world. In doing so, she provides vivid examples of racism layered on caste. Consider the following:

“The Nazis were impressed by the American custom of lynching its subordinate caste of African-Americans, having become aware of the ritual torture and mutilations that typically accompanied them. Hitler especially marveled at the American ‘knack for maintaining an air of robust innocence in the wake of mass death.’ ” Ms. Wilkerson informs us that Hitler sent emissaries to study America’s Jim Crow system and then imported some features to orchestrate the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Her most vivid example of internalized casteism is the experience of a Dalit scholar who still experiences anxiety and a corresponding sense of inadequacy in the presence of someone who is considered to be from a higher caste.

A painful account of interpersonal racism is captured as Ms. Wilkerson recounts her experience after a routine business flight from Chicago to Detroit. She details her difficulty leaving a rental car parking lot because she had become so disoriented after being profiled and accosted by Drug Enforcement Administration agents who had intercepted her in the airport terminal and followed her onto the airport shuttle bus as she attempted to reach her destination. She provides a description of “getting turned around in a parking lot that I had been to dozens of times, going in circles, not able to get out, not registering the signs to the exit, not seeing how to get to Interstate 94, when I knew full well how to get to I-94 after all the times I’d driven it. ... This was the thievery of caste, stealing the time and psychic resources of the marginalized, draining energy in an already uphill competition. They were not, like me, frozen and disoriented, trying to make sense of a public violation that seemed all the more menacing now that I could see it in full. The quiet mundanity of that terror has never left me, the scars outliving the cut.”

This account is consistent with the dissociative, disorienting dynamics of race-based trauma. Her experience is not uncommon and helps to explain the activism of those in the subordinate caste who have attained some measure of wealth, power, and influence, and are motivated to expend their resources (energy, time, fame, and/or wealth) to raise awareness about social and political injustices by calling out structural racism in medicine, protesting police use of force by taking a knee, boycotting sporting events, and even demanding that football stadiums be used as polling sites. At the end of the day, all of us who have “made it” know that when we leave our homes, our relegation to the subordinate caste determines how we are perceived and what landmines we must navigate to make it through the day and that determine whether we will make it home.

This tour de force work of art has the potential to be a game changer in the way that we think about racial polarization in the United States. It is hoped that this new language opens up a space that allows each of us to explore this hegemony while identifying our placement and actions we take to maintain it, for each of us undeniably has a position in this caste system.

Having this new lexicon summons to mind the reactions of patients who gain immediate relief from having their illnesses named. In the case of the U.S. malady that has gripped us all, Ms. Wilkerson reiterates the importance of naming the condition. She writes:

“Because, to truly understand America, we must open our eyes to the hidden work of a caste system that has gone unnamed but prevails among us to our collective detriment, to see that we have more in common with each other and with cultures that we might otherwise dismiss, and to summon the courage to consider that therein may lie the answers.”

The naming allows both doctor and patient to have greater insight, understanding its origins and course, as well as having hope that there is a remedy. Naming facilitates the space for a shift in thinking and implementation of treatment protocols, such as Nazi Germany’s “zero tolerance policy” of swastikas in comparison to the ongoing U.S. controversy about the display of Confederate symbols. At this point in history, we welcome a diagnosis that has the potential to shift us from these poles of dominant and subordinate, black and white, good and bad, toward integration and wholeness of the individual psyche and collective global community. This is similar to what Melanie Klein calls the depressive position. Ms. Wilkerson suggests, in relinquishing these polar splits, we increase our capacity to shift to a space where our psychic integration occurs and our inextricable interdependence and responsibility for one another are honored.
 

Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University. She is interested in the management of “difference” – race, gender, ethnicity, and intersectionality – in dyadic relationships and group dynamics; and the impact of racism on interpersonal relationships in institutional structures. Dr. Dunlap practices in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Dennis is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst. Her interests are in gender and ethnic diversity, health equity, and supervision and training. Dr. Dennis practices in Washington and has no disclosures.

Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.

In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.

Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.

In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.

Suicide rates in young people aged 10-24 years increased significantly in 42 states from 2007-2009 to 2016-2018, according to a recent analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Nationally, the suicide rate jumped 47%, based on the averages for the two 3-year periods, rising from 7.0 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years to 10.3 per 100,000. For all ages, the corresponding increase was 47%, Sally C. Curtin, MA, of the NCHS, said in a National Vital Statistics Report.

There was no state with a decrease in suicide rates for adolescents and young adults, as the other eight all had nonsignificant increases, the smallest being 14% in South Dakota. Three-year averages were used to increase statistical power for states with relatively small numbers of deaths but were still not enough to show significance for some large increases, such as the 48% rise in Delaware, Ms. Curtin noted.

In 2016-2018, Alaska’s suicide rate of 31.8 per 100,000 persons aged 10-24 years was the highest in the country, followed by South Dakota (23.6), Montana (23.2), and Wyoming (20.5). New Jersey had the lowest rate at 5.7 per 100,000, with New York and Rhode Island both slightly higher at 5.9 and Connecticut at 6.3, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Even the low numbers, however, hide some large changes, as New Jersey (up by 39%) and New York (up by 44%) were among the 42 states with statistically significant increases, which ranged from 21.7% in Maryland to 110% in New Hampshire, Ms. Curtin said in the report. The increases seen in this analysis contrast with data from the preceding time period, as “the suicide rate among persons aged 10-24 was statistically stable from 2000 to 2007.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Curtin SC. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2020;69(11)1-9.