User login
New Data Support Viagra for Alzheimer’s Prevention
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH
The Power of Patient-Reported Outcomes Is Inhibited by Multiple Barriers
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to experts participating in a symposium at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
These barriers include a lack of consensus on how and which PROs to collect, lack of a systematic method of interpreting the meaning of PRO changes, and lack of reimbursement for the time to collect PRO data and enter it into the medical record, according to Robert McBurney, PhD, president of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis, Washington.
Potentially Useful Clinical Information
PROs can identify hidden symptoms of MS as well as provide information on the relative importance of the standard measures of disease progression, such as disability, but at the current time “these are rarely captured or used in shared decision-making to guide treatment,” Dr. McBurney said.
A reasonable analogy can be made between MS and musculoskeletal diseases, such as arthritis, according to Dr. McBurney. In both, not all patients experience the burden of disease in the same way, whether measured with traditional laboratory or imaging evidence of disease activity or by PROs that capture anxiety, depression, and specific impairments affecting activities of daily living.
Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is now mandating the entry of PRO data for the reimbursement of some forms of orthopedic surgery, while MS is lagging behind, according to Dr. McBurney.
The difference between orthopedics and MS is evidence submitted to CMS showing that improvement in PROs matter for patient outcome and well-being. Dr. McBurney argued that the same type of data is lacking for MS.
More well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm that beneficial effects on PROs can improve patient outcomes, but Dr. McBurney suggested that PRO data from the many MS patient registries might be an easier first step. He reported that 24 of 43 MS registries around the globe are now capturing PRO data.
Unfortunately, the AXON registry, which is managed by the American Academy of Neurology, is not one of them, Dr. McBurney said. This is not an oversight. Dr. McBurney explained that the first effort to add PROs to data collected by AXON was initiated more than 5 years ago, but several complications thwarted the process. A new effort has been recently scheduled.
By developing data showing that PROs matter, AAN “might lead the charge” for establishing the collection of PRO data as a standard of care and eliciting reimbursement from third-party payers for doing so, Dr. McBurney said. Nevertheless, he cautioned that validated methodology for collecting PRO data and identifying clinically meaningful changes in scores will be fundamental to PRO utility.
A Path Forward
In the best circumstance, PRO data captured at a patient visit would be analogous to a lab test. Just as blood tests generate data in the context of normative ranges for a dozen or more parameters, the PRO data could be displayed with the same type of context, allowing physicians and patients to see a specific PRO measure displayed against a normative range so results are easily interpreted, according to Dr. McBurney.
But, again, there are barriers. Numerous validated sets of PROs are available with no consensus on which might serve as a standard. While Dr. McBurney singled out the SymptoMScreen tool as one that is already recommended by the MS Data Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the European Charcot Foundation to transform real-world MS data into evidence suitable for MS care, he acknowledged it is just one of many options.
“The SymptoMScreen has been used in several clinical studies and it is relatively simple to use,” Dr. McBurney said. Even if there is no single “best” instrument for measuring PROs, a standard might move the process forward.
The president of the European Charcot Foundation, Giancarlo Comi, MD, agreed that PROs are almost certainly coming to the routine management of MS as each of the current barriers described by Dr. McBurney are addressed. He said that PROs are particularly important in managing progressive MS, for which he thinks that traditional biomarkers, such as brain images, are particularly poor at capturing the burden of disease.
“The EMA [European Medicines Agency] and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] are both very interested in using PROs to evaluate treatments in MS,” he said.
PROs might be incorporated into routine care by clinicians convinced that they help in guiding treatment choices, but Dr. McBurney and Dr. Comi agreed that some approach, including financial incentives, to encourage clinicians to capture and record PROs is probably needed before they are used routinely.
Dr. McBurney reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Comi reports financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Genzyme, Hoffman-LaRoche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to experts participating in a symposium at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
These barriers include a lack of consensus on how and which PROs to collect, lack of a systematic method of interpreting the meaning of PRO changes, and lack of reimbursement for the time to collect PRO data and enter it into the medical record, according to Robert McBurney, PhD, president of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis, Washington.
Potentially Useful Clinical Information
PROs can identify hidden symptoms of MS as well as provide information on the relative importance of the standard measures of disease progression, such as disability, but at the current time “these are rarely captured or used in shared decision-making to guide treatment,” Dr. McBurney said.
A reasonable analogy can be made between MS and musculoskeletal diseases, such as arthritis, according to Dr. McBurney. In both, not all patients experience the burden of disease in the same way, whether measured with traditional laboratory or imaging evidence of disease activity or by PROs that capture anxiety, depression, and specific impairments affecting activities of daily living.
Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is now mandating the entry of PRO data for the reimbursement of some forms of orthopedic surgery, while MS is lagging behind, according to Dr. McBurney.
The difference between orthopedics and MS is evidence submitted to CMS showing that improvement in PROs matter for patient outcome and well-being. Dr. McBurney argued that the same type of data is lacking for MS.
More well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm that beneficial effects on PROs can improve patient outcomes, but Dr. McBurney suggested that PRO data from the many MS patient registries might be an easier first step. He reported that 24 of 43 MS registries around the globe are now capturing PRO data.
Unfortunately, the AXON registry, which is managed by the American Academy of Neurology, is not one of them, Dr. McBurney said. This is not an oversight. Dr. McBurney explained that the first effort to add PROs to data collected by AXON was initiated more than 5 years ago, but several complications thwarted the process. A new effort has been recently scheduled.
By developing data showing that PROs matter, AAN “might lead the charge” for establishing the collection of PRO data as a standard of care and eliciting reimbursement from third-party payers for doing so, Dr. McBurney said. Nevertheless, he cautioned that validated methodology for collecting PRO data and identifying clinically meaningful changes in scores will be fundamental to PRO utility.
A Path Forward
In the best circumstance, PRO data captured at a patient visit would be analogous to a lab test. Just as blood tests generate data in the context of normative ranges for a dozen or more parameters, the PRO data could be displayed with the same type of context, allowing physicians and patients to see a specific PRO measure displayed against a normative range so results are easily interpreted, according to Dr. McBurney.
But, again, there are barriers. Numerous validated sets of PROs are available with no consensus on which might serve as a standard. While Dr. McBurney singled out the SymptoMScreen tool as one that is already recommended by the MS Data Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the European Charcot Foundation to transform real-world MS data into evidence suitable for MS care, he acknowledged it is just one of many options.
“The SymptoMScreen has been used in several clinical studies and it is relatively simple to use,” Dr. McBurney said. Even if there is no single “best” instrument for measuring PROs, a standard might move the process forward.
The president of the European Charcot Foundation, Giancarlo Comi, MD, agreed that PROs are almost certainly coming to the routine management of MS as each of the current barriers described by Dr. McBurney are addressed. He said that PROs are particularly important in managing progressive MS, for which he thinks that traditional biomarkers, such as brain images, are particularly poor at capturing the burden of disease.
“The EMA [European Medicines Agency] and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] are both very interested in using PROs to evaluate treatments in MS,” he said.
PROs might be incorporated into routine care by clinicians convinced that they help in guiding treatment choices, but Dr. McBurney and Dr. Comi agreed that some approach, including financial incentives, to encourage clinicians to capture and record PROs is probably needed before they are used routinely.
Dr. McBurney reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Comi reports financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Genzyme, Hoffman-LaRoche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to experts participating in a symposium at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
These barriers include a lack of consensus on how and which PROs to collect, lack of a systematic method of interpreting the meaning of PRO changes, and lack of reimbursement for the time to collect PRO data and enter it into the medical record, according to Robert McBurney, PhD, president of the nonprofit Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis, Washington.
Potentially Useful Clinical Information
PROs can identify hidden symptoms of MS as well as provide information on the relative importance of the standard measures of disease progression, such as disability, but at the current time “these are rarely captured or used in shared decision-making to guide treatment,” Dr. McBurney said.
A reasonable analogy can be made between MS and musculoskeletal diseases, such as arthritis, according to Dr. McBurney. In both, not all patients experience the burden of disease in the same way, whether measured with traditional laboratory or imaging evidence of disease activity or by PROs that capture anxiety, depression, and specific impairments affecting activities of daily living.
Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is now mandating the entry of PRO data for the reimbursement of some forms of orthopedic surgery, while MS is lagging behind, according to Dr. McBurney.
The difference between orthopedics and MS is evidence submitted to CMS showing that improvement in PROs matter for patient outcome and well-being. Dr. McBurney argued that the same type of data is lacking for MS.
More well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm that beneficial effects on PROs can improve patient outcomes, but Dr. McBurney suggested that PRO data from the many MS patient registries might be an easier first step. He reported that 24 of 43 MS registries around the globe are now capturing PRO data.
Unfortunately, the AXON registry, which is managed by the American Academy of Neurology, is not one of them, Dr. McBurney said. This is not an oversight. Dr. McBurney explained that the first effort to add PROs to data collected by AXON was initiated more than 5 years ago, but several complications thwarted the process. A new effort has been recently scheduled.
By developing data showing that PROs matter, AAN “might lead the charge” for establishing the collection of PRO data as a standard of care and eliciting reimbursement from third-party payers for doing so, Dr. McBurney said. Nevertheless, he cautioned that validated methodology for collecting PRO data and identifying clinically meaningful changes in scores will be fundamental to PRO utility.
A Path Forward
In the best circumstance, PRO data captured at a patient visit would be analogous to a lab test. Just as blood tests generate data in the context of normative ranges for a dozen or more parameters, the PRO data could be displayed with the same type of context, allowing physicians and patients to see a specific PRO measure displayed against a normative range so results are easily interpreted, according to Dr. McBurney.
But, again, there are barriers. Numerous validated sets of PROs are available with no consensus on which might serve as a standard. While Dr. McBurney singled out the SymptoMScreen tool as one that is already recommended by the MS Data Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the European Charcot Foundation to transform real-world MS data into evidence suitable for MS care, he acknowledged it is just one of many options.
“The SymptoMScreen has been used in several clinical studies and it is relatively simple to use,” Dr. McBurney said. Even if there is no single “best” instrument for measuring PROs, a standard might move the process forward.
The president of the European Charcot Foundation, Giancarlo Comi, MD, agreed that PROs are almost certainly coming to the routine management of MS as each of the current barriers described by Dr. McBurney are addressed. He said that PROs are particularly important in managing progressive MS, for which he thinks that traditional biomarkers, such as brain images, are particularly poor at capturing the burden of disease.
“The EMA [European Medicines Agency] and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] are both very interested in using PROs to evaluate treatments in MS,” he said.
PROs might be incorporated into routine care by clinicians convinced that they help in guiding treatment choices, but Dr. McBurney and Dr. Comi agreed that some approach, including financial incentives, to encourage clinicians to capture and record PROs is probably needed before they are used routinely.
Dr. McBurney reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Comi reports financial relationships with Almirall, Celgene, Genzyme, Hoffman-LaRoche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi.
FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2024
Randomized Trial Confirms Prognostic Value of Neurofilament Light Chains in MS
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — regardless of treatment assignment, according to new substudy data from the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
There are numerous studies supporting sNfL as a prognostic biomarker in MS, but a series of preplanned ASCLEPIOS substudies provided an opportunity to evaluate its predictive value across different therapies, according to Thomas P. Leist, MD, PhD, division chief, Multiple Sclerosis/Neuroimmunology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
These data “support the use of a single sNfL threshold to prognosticate disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting MS on a disease-modifying therapy,” Dr. Leist reported.
When those with elevated sNfL levels, defined as being above the median (≥ 9.3 pg/mL), at 3 months were compared with those with lower sNfL levels (< 9.3 pg/mL), the on-treatment annualized rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was 2.2-fold (P < .001) greater. When measured at 12 months, the annualized rate was 3.6-fold greater (P < .001).
These differences in annualized rates for higher sNfL levels at 3 months (3.67 vs 1.69) and 12 months (4.90 vs 1.37) were independent of assigned therapy.
The ASCLEPIOS I/II trials compared the injectable anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab to teriflunomide, an oral inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, using a double-dummy, double-blind protocol. In the two trials that were published together (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383[6]:546-557. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917246), the annualized relapse rate was about 50% lower for ofatumumab (P < .001 in both trials). Other markers of activity, such as new lesions on T1- and T2-weighted imaging as well as sNfL levels, all favored ofatumumab numerically even if not all the secondary measures reached statistical significance.
Is sNfL Relevant Independent of Treatment?
In this preplanned substudy, the question was whether sNfL levels over the course of early follow-up were prognostic regardless of treatment assignment. This was not only shown for the study population overall but for several important subpopulations, such as those defined by race and ethnicity and body mass index (BMI). Of the 1892 patients enrolled in the two ASCLEPIOS trials, baseline sNfL data collection, which was part of the study protocol, was available for 1746 (92.8%).
Nearly 90% of the patients enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials were White with the remainder nearly evenly split between Black, Asian, and other, a category that included unknown race. In all groups, the annualized mean rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was more than double among those with a sNfL above the mean versus those below the mean.
While these results were based on an above-or-below mean sNfL threshold, “future work should evaluate how this single sNfL threshold could be optimized with a specific target and population in mind,” according to the lead investigator on this analysis, Silvia R. Delgado, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
The BMI analysis also supported the same idea. Anne H. Cross, MD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, who led this work, concluded that a single sNfL threshold was prognostic for all groups studied, “including those defined by BMI and age.”
Optimal sNfL Threshold May Not Be Defined
Like Dr. Leist, Dr. Cross emphasized that while these data suggest that sNfL is a useful prognostic indicator in patients on treatment regardless of the treatment they are receiving, these subanalyses “support further work on the optimization of sNfL.” The potential for a more clinically useful threshold to define elevated sNfL has not been ruled out.
Although Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, did not review these data in detail, he agreed that evidence showing sNfL levels to be consistently prognostic regardless of background therapy is potentially important new information. Dr. Ontaneda, the chair of this year’s ACTRIMS conference, said that progress in defining new biomarkers for RRMS, such as sNfL, is needed and potentially clinically meaningful.
However, asked if evaluating sNfL after a specific time on therapy, such as 3 months, would be helpful to clinicians guiding therapy, Dr. Ontaneda said, “This is a different question.” He said a separate set of studies will be needed to confirm that acting on sNfL levels can improve outcomes.
Dr. Leist reported financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis, which was the sponsor of the ASCLEPIOS trials. Dr. Salvado has financial relationships with EMD Serono and Novartis. Dr. Cross has financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Horizon, Novartis, Octave, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ontaneda reports no potential conflicts of interest.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — regardless of treatment assignment, according to new substudy data from the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
There are numerous studies supporting sNfL as a prognostic biomarker in MS, but a series of preplanned ASCLEPIOS substudies provided an opportunity to evaluate its predictive value across different therapies, according to Thomas P. Leist, MD, PhD, division chief, Multiple Sclerosis/Neuroimmunology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
These data “support the use of a single sNfL threshold to prognosticate disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting MS on a disease-modifying therapy,” Dr. Leist reported.
When those with elevated sNfL levels, defined as being above the median (≥ 9.3 pg/mL), at 3 months were compared with those with lower sNfL levels (< 9.3 pg/mL), the on-treatment annualized rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was 2.2-fold (P < .001) greater. When measured at 12 months, the annualized rate was 3.6-fold greater (P < .001).
These differences in annualized rates for higher sNfL levels at 3 months (3.67 vs 1.69) and 12 months (4.90 vs 1.37) were independent of assigned therapy.
The ASCLEPIOS I/II trials compared the injectable anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab to teriflunomide, an oral inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, using a double-dummy, double-blind protocol. In the two trials that were published together (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383[6]:546-557. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917246), the annualized relapse rate was about 50% lower for ofatumumab (P < .001 in both trials). Other markers of activity, such as new lesions on T1- and T2-weighted imaging as well as sNfL levels, all favored ofatumumab numerically even if not all the secondary measures reached statistical significance.
Is sNfL Relevant Independent of Treatment?
In this preplanned substudy, the question was whether sNfL levels over the course of early follow-up were prognostic regardless of treatment assignment. This was not only shown for the study population overall but for several important subpopulations, such as those defined by race and ethnicity and body mass index (BMI). Of the 1892 patients enrolled in the two ASCLEPIOS trials, baseline sNfL data collection, which was part of the study protocol, was available for 1746 (92.8%).
Nearly 90% of the patients enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials were White with the remainder nearly evenly split between Black, Asian, and other, a category that included unknown race. In all groups, the annualized mean rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was more than double among those with a sNfL above the mean versus those below the mean.
While these results were based on an above-or-below mean sNfL threshold, “future work should evaluate how this single sNfL threshold could be optimized with a specific target and population in mind,” according to the lead investigator on this analysis, Silvia R. Delgado, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
The BMI analysis also supported the same idea. Anne H. Cross, MD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, who led this work, concluded that a single sNfL threshold was prognostic for all groups studied, “including those defined by BMI and age.”
Optimal sNfL Threshold May Not Be Defined
Like Dr. Leist, Dr. Cross emphasized that while these data suggest that sNfL is a useful prognostic indicator in patients on treatment regardless of the treatment they are receiving, these subanalyses “support further work on the optimization of sNfL.” The potential for a more clinically useful threshold to define elevated sNfL has not been ruled out.
Although Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, did not review these data in detail, he agreed that evidence showing sNfL levels to be consistently prognostic regardless of background therapy is potentially important new information. Dr. Ontaneda, the chair of this year’s ACTRIMS conference, said that progress in defining new biomarkers for RRMS, such as sNfL, is needed and potentially clinically meaningful.
However, asked if evaluating sNfL after a specific time on therapy, such as 3 months, would be helpful to clinicians guiding therapy, Dr. Ontaneda said, “This is a different question.” He said a separate set of studies will be needed to confirm that acting on sNfL levels can improve outcomes.
Dr. Leist reported financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis, which was the sponsor of the ASCLEPIOS trials. Dr. Salvado has financial relationships with EMD Serono and Novartis. Dr. Cross has financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Horizon, Novartis, Octave, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ontaneda reports no potential conflicts of interest.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — regardless of treatment assignment, according to new substudy data from the ASCLEPIOS I/II trials presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
There are numerous studies supporting sNfL as a prognostic biomarker in MS, but a series of preplanned ASCLEPIOS substudies provided an opportunity to evaluate its predictive value across different therapies, according to Thomas P. Leist, MD, PhD, division chief, Multiple Sclerosis/Neuroimmunology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
These data “support the use of a single sNfL threshold to prognosticate disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting MS on a disease-modifying therapy,” Dr. Leist reported.
When those with elevated sNfL levels, defined as being above the median (≥ 9.3 pg/mL), at 3 months were compared with those with lower sNfL levels (< 9.3 pg/mL), the on-treatment annualized rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was 2.2-fold (P < .001) greater. When measured at 12 months, the annualized rate was 3.6-fold greater (P < .001).
These differences in annualized rates for higher sNfL levels at 3 months (3.67 vs 1.69) and 12 months (4.90 vs 1.37) were independent of assigned therapy.
The ASCLEPIOS I/II trials compared the injectable anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab to teriflunomide, an oral inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, using a double-dummy, double-blind protocol. In the two trials that were published together (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383[6]:546-557. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917246), the annualized relapse rate was about 50% lower for ofatumumab (P < .001 in both trials). Other markers of activity, such as new lesions on T1- and T2-weighted imaging as well as sNfL levels, all favored ofatumumab numerically even if not all the secondary measures reached statistical significance.
Is sNfL Relevant Independent of Treatment?
In this preplanned substudy, the question was whether sNfL levels over the course of early follow-up were prognostic regardless of treatment assignment. This was not only shown for the study population overall but for several important subpopulations, such as those defined by race and ethnicity and body mass index (BMI). Of the 1892 patients enrolled in the two ASCLEPIOS trials, baseline sNfL data collection, which was part of the study protocol, was available for 1746 (92.8%).
Nearly 90% of the patients enrolled in the ASCLEPIOS trials were White with the remainder nearly evenly split between Black, Asian, and other, a category that included unknown race. In all groups, the annualized mean rate of new or enlarging T2 lesions was more than double among those with a sNfL above the mean versus those below the mean.
While these results were based on an above-or-below mean sNfL threshold, “future work should evaluate how this single sNfL threshold could be optimized with a specific target and population in mind,” according to the lead investigator on this analysis, Silvia R. Delgado, MD, a professor in the Department of Neurology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
The BMI analysis also supported the same idea. Anne H. Cross, MD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, who led this work, concluded that a single sNfL threshold was prognostic for all groups studied, “including those defined by BMI and age.”
Optimal sNfL Threshold May Not Be Defined
Like Dr. Leist, Dr. Cross emphasized that while these data suggest that sNfL is a useful prognostic indicator in patients on treatment regardless of the treatment they are receiving, these subanalyses “support further work on the optimization of sNfL.” The potential for a more clinically useful threshold to define elevated sNfL has not been ruled out.
Although Daniel Ontaneda, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, did not review these data in detail, he agreed that evidence showing sNfL levels to be consistently prognostic regardless of background therapy is potentially important new information. Dr. Ontaneda, the chair of this year’s ACTRIMS conference, said that progress in defining new biomarkers for RRMS, such as sNfL, is needed and potentially clinically meaningful.
However, asked if evaluating sNfL after a specific time on therapy, such as 3 months, would be helpful to clinicians guiding therapy, Dr. Ontaneda said, “This is a different question.” He said a separate set of studies will be needed to confirm that acting on sNfL levels can improve outcomes.
Dr. Leist reported financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis, which was the sponsor of the ASCLEPIOS trials. Dr. Salvado has financial relationships with EMD Serono and Novartis. Dr. Cross has financial relationships with Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Horizon, Novartis, Octave, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ontaneda reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2024
Attrition in Youth Sports
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Frexalimab Promising for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Barriers to Remyelinating Drugs in MS Are Falling as Science Advances
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.
“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.
“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”
The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites
The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.
The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.
Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.
Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.
“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.
One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.
“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.
The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise
Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).
Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.
The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.
“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.
He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.
Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.
“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.
“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”
The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites
The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.
The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.
Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.
Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.
“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.
One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.
“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.
The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise
Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).
Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.
The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.
“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.
He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.
Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — , according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.
“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.
“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”
The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites
The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.
The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.
Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.
Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.
“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.
One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.
“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.
The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise
Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).
Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.
The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.
“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.
He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.
Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2024
Higher Dietary Niacin Tied to Lower Mortality Risk in MASLD
TOPLINE:
Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
- Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
- Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
- Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
- For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
- When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
- An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.
IN PRACTICE:
“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.
DISCLOSURES:
One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
- Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
- Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
- Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
- For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
- When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
- An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.
IN PRACTICE:
“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.
DISCLOSURES:
One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
- Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
- Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
- Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
- For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
- When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
- An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.
IN PRACTICE:
“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.
DISCLOSURES:
One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
High Marks for New CAR T Toxicity Grading Tool
“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).
“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
ICAHT Grading System
In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.
“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”
To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.
The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.
By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.
Real-World Evaluation
To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.
The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.
Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).
Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).
Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.
Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).
However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.
The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).
Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).
While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.
Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.
Recommendations in Clinical Practice
For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.
The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.
“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.
“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.
“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.
An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”
The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.
“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.
Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.
“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”
Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.
“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).
“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
ICAHT Grading System
In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.
“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”
To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.
The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.
By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.
Real-World Evaluation
To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.
The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.
Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).
Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).
Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.
Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).
However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.
The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).
Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).
While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.
Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.
Recommendations in Clinical Practice
For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.
The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.
“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.
“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.
“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.
An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”
The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.
“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.
Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.
“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”
Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.
“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).
“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
ICAHT Grading System
In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.
“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”
To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.
The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.
By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.
Real-World Evaluation
To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.
The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.
Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).
Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).
Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.
Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).
Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).
However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.
The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).
Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).
While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.
Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.
Recommendations in Clinical Practice
For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.
The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.
“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.
“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.
“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.
An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”
The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.
“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.
Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.
“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”
Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.
FROM THE 6TH EUROPEAN CAR T-CELL MEETING
Hypertension Stable in US, Antihypertensive Med Use Rises
TOPLINE:
Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
- Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
- To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
- Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
- From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
- The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
- Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
- Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
- Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
- To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
- Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
- From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
- The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
- Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
- Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
- Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
- To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
- Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
- From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
- The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
- Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
- Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Healthy Lifestyle Linked to Lower Risk for IBS
TOPLINE:
Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
- Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
- Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.
TAKEAWAY:
- At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
- During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
- Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
- Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
- After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
- Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
- Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.
TAKEAWAY:
- At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
- During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
- Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
- Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
- After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
- Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
- Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.
TAKEAWAY:
- At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
- During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
- Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
- Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
- After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.