The checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab may hold some promise for treating women with metastatic gynecologic cancers, especially cervical disease, according to cohort results from the phase 1/2 CheckMate 358 trial.

Of twenty-four patients enrolled in the recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal/vulvar carcinoma cohorts, 26.3% of patients with cervical cancer and 20% with vaginal/vulvar cancers experienced an objective response, R. Wendel Naumann, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Because of the small size of the vaginal/vulvar cohort, median overall survival was not calculated.

“Given the lack of effective therapy and low survival rates for patients with metastatic disease in these gynecologic cancers, the results reported here are of strong clinical interest and underscore the growing role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this patient population,” the investigators wrote.

Checkmate 358 is investigating nivolumab in patients with virus-associated cancers. Patients receive nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks for 2 years) until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or withdrawal of consent.

The median age was 51 years in the cervical cohort (n = 19) and 59 in the vaginal/vulvar cohort (n = 5). HPV status was positive in 83.3% of those with cervical disease and 40% of those with vaginal/vulvar disease. Ten cervical tumors and four vaginal/vulvar tumors expressed PD-L1.

The median duration of nivolumab treatment was 5.6 months in the cervical cohort and 6.7 months in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median follow-up was 19 months and 10 months, respectively.

At 12 months and 18 months, 40.0% of the cervical cohort and 20% of the vaginal/vulvar cohort were still alive.

The most common treatment-related adverse effects were diarrhea and decreased appetite. One patient in the cervical cohort discontinued treatment because of pneumonitis, which was considered treatment related.

Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the study. Several of Dr. Naumann’s associates reported relationships with the company and four others are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naumann RW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1200JCP.19.00739.

The checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab may hold some promise for treating women with metastatic gynecologic cancers, especially cervical disease, according to cohort results from the phase 1/2 CheckMate 358 trial.

Of twenty-four patients enrolled in the recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal/vulvar carcinoma cohorts, 26.3% of patients with cervical cancer and 20% with vaginal/vulvar cancers experienced an objective response, R. Wendel Naumann, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Because of the small size of the vaginal/vulvar cohort, median overall survival was not calculated.

“Given the lack of effective therapy and low survival rates for patients with metastatic disease in these gynecologic cancers, the results reported here are of strong clinical interest and underscore the growing role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this patient population,” the investigators wrote.

Checkmate 358 is investigating nivolumab in patients with virus-associated cancers. Patients receive nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks for 2 years) until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or withdrawal of consent.

The median age was 51 years in the cervical cohort (n = 19) and 59 in the vaginal/vulvar cohort (n = 5). HPV status was positive in 83.3% of those with cervical disease and 40% of those with vaginal/vulvar disease. Ten cervical tumors and four vaginal/vulvar tumors expressed PD-L1.

The median duration of nivolumab treatment was 5.6 months in the cervical cohort and 6.7 months in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median follow-up was 19 months and 10 months, respectively.

At 12 months and 18 months, 40.0% of the cervical cohort and 20% of the vaginal/vulvar cohort were still alive.

The most common treatment-related adverse effects were diarrhea and decreased appetite. One patient in the cervical cohort discontinued treatment because of pneumonitis, which was considered treatment related.

Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the study. Several of Dr. Naumann’s associates reported relationships with the company and four others are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naumann RW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1200JCP.19.00739.

The checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab may hold some promise for treating women with metastatic gynecologic cancers, especially cervical disease, according to cohort results from the phase 1/2 CheckMate 358 trial.

Of twenty-four patients enrolled in the recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal/vulvar carcinoma cohorts, 26.3% of patients with cervical cancer and 20% with vaginal/vulvar cancers experienced an objective response, R. Wendel Naumann, MD, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Because of the small size of the vaginal/vulvar cohort, median overall survival was not calculated.

“Given the lack of effective therapy and low survival rates for patients with metastatic disease in these gynecologic cancers, the results reported here are of strong clinical interest and underscore the growing role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this patient population,” the investigators wrote.

Checkmate 358 is investigating nivolumab in patients with virus-associated cancers. Patients receive nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks for 2 years) until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or withdrawal of consent.

The median age was 51 years in the cervical cohort (n = 19) and 59 in the vaginal/vulvar cohort (n = 5). HPV status was positive in 83.3% of those with cervical disease and 40% of those with vaginal/vulvar disease. Ten cervical tumors and four vaginal/vulvar tumors expressed PD-L1.

The median duration of nivolumab treatment was 5.6 months in the cervical cohort and 6.7 months in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median follow-up was 19 months and 10 months, respectively.

At 12 months and 18 months, 40.0% of the cervical cohort and 20% of the vaginal/vulvar cohort were still alive.

The most common treatment-related adverse effects were diarrhea and decreased appetite. One patient in the cervical cohort discontinued treatment because of pneumonitis, which was considered treatment related.

Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the study. Several of Dr. Naumann’s associates reported relationships with the company and four others are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naumann RW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1200JCP.19.00739.

Whether Congress will act this year to address the affordability of prescription drugs – a high priority among voters – remains uncertain. But states aren’t waiting.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

So far this year, 33 states have enacted a record 51 laws to address drug prices, affordability, and access. That tops the previous record of 45 laws enacted in 28 states set just last year, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy, a nonprofit advocacy group that develops model legislation and promotes such laws.

Among the new measures are those that authorize importing prescription drugs, screen for excessive price increases by drug companies, and establish oversight boards to set the prices that states will pay for drugs.

“Legislative activity in this area is escalating,” said Trish Riley, NASHP’s executive director. “This year, some states moved to launch programs that directly impact what they and consumers pay for high-cost drugs.”

And more laws could be coming before year’s end. Of the handful of states still in legislative session – including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – debate continues on dozens of prescription drug bills. In New Jersey alone, some 20 proposed laws are under consideration.

“Both Democrat and Republican leaders have shown a willingness to pursue strong measures that help consumers but also protect state taxpayer dollars,” said Hemi Tewarson, director of the National Governors Association’s health programs.

Ms. Riley, Ms. Tewarson, and others note, however, that states can go only so far in addressing rising drug prices, and that federal legislation would be necessary to have a major effect on the way the marketplace works.

Federal lawmakers are keeping a close eye on the state initiatives, Ms. Tewarson said, to gauge where legislative compromise may lie – even as Congress debates more than a dozen bills that target drug costs. Political divisiveness, a packed congressional schedule and a looming election year could stall momentum at the federal level.

The pharmaceutical industry has opposed most – though not all – state bills, said Priscilla VanderVeer, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main trade group.

“We agree that what consumers now pay for drugs out-of-pocket is a serious problem,” said Ms. VanderVeer. “Many states have passed bills that look good on paper but that we don’t believe will save consumers money.”

Limiting gag rules for pharmacists

At least 16 states have enacted 20 laws governing the behavior of pharmacy benefit managers. The so-called PBMs serve as middlemen among drugmakers, insurance companies, and pharmacies, largely with pharmaceutical industry support.

Those laws add to the 28 passed in 2018. Most of the new laws ban “gag clauses” that some PBMs impose on pharmacists. The clauses, written into pharmacy contracts, stop pharmacists from discussing with customers whether a drug’s cash price would be lower than its out-of-pocket cost under insurance.

With widespread public outrage over gag clauses pushing states to act, federal lawmakers got the message. In October, Congress passed a federal law banning such clauses in PBM-pharmacy contracts nationwide and under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The Senate passed it 98-2.

Even so, many of this year’s PBM laws contain additional gag clause limitations that go beyond the 2018 federal law.

Importing cheaper drugs

Four states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, and Vermont – this year have enacted measures to establish programs to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and, in Florida’s case, potentially other countries. Six other states are considering such legislation.

Medicines from Canada and other countries are less expensive because those nations negotiate directly with drugmakers to set prices.

“This is an area where states once feared to tread,” said Jane Horvath, a consultant with NASHP who has advised Maryland and Oregon, among other states, on prescription drug policy. “Now both Republicans and Democrats view it as a way to infuse more price competition into the marketplace.”

Hurdles remain, however. A 2003 law allows states to import cheaper drugs from Canada but only if the federal Health & Human Services Department approves a state’s plan and certifies its safety. During 2004-2009, the federal government halted nascent drug import efforts in five states.

Even so, momentum for importation has built in recent years in states and Congress as drug prices have continued to rise. And the Trump administration this summer threw its support behind the idea.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and close ally of President Donald Trump, signed his state’s measure into law on June 11, claiming he did so after Trump personally promised him that the White House would back the initiative.

On July 31, HHS announced an “action plan” to “lay the foundation for safe importation of certain prescription drugs.” The plan includes a process to authorize state initiatives. It also requires formal regulatory review, including establishing Food and Drug Administration safety criteria. That process could take up to 2 years.

Two big problems remain: In the weeks since the announcement, the Canadian government has opposed any plan that would rely solely on Canada as a source of imported drugs. The pharmaceutical industry also opposes the plan.

Creating drug affordability boards

Maryland and Maine enacted laws this year that establish state agencies to review the costs of drugs and take action against those whose price increases exceed a certain threshold.

New Jersey and Massachusetts are debating similar legislation this year.

Maryland’s law establishes a five-member board to review the list prices and costs of drugs purchased by the state and Maryland’s county and local governments. The board will probe drugs that increase in price by $3,000 or more per year and new medicines that enter the market costing $30,000 or more per year or over the course of treatment.

If approved by future legislation, upper payment limits on drugs with excessive price increases or annual costs would take effect in January 2022.

“My constituents have signaled loud and clear that bringing drug prices down is one of their top priorities,” said state Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, a Democrat representing Baltimore, who sponsored the legislation.

Maine’s law also establishes a five-member board. Beginning in 2021, the board will set annual spending targets for drugs purchased by the state and local governments.

Increasing price transparency

This year, four states – Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and Washington – became the latest to enact laws requiring drug companies to provide information to states and consumers on the list prices of drugs and planned price increases.

The majority of states now have such transparency laws, and most post the data on public websites. The details vary, but all states with such laws seek to identify drugs with price increases above 10% or more a year, and drugs with price increases above set dollar values.

Oregon’s new law, for example, requires manufacturers to notify the state 60 days in advance of any planned increase of 10% or more in the price of brand-name drugs, and any 25% or greater increase in the price of generic drugs.

“That 60-days’ notice was very important to us,” said state Rep. Andrea Salinas, a Democrat and chair of the Oregon House’s health committee, who represents Lake Oswego. “It gives doctors and patients advance notice and a chance to adjust and consider what to do.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Whether Congress will act this year to address the affordability of prescription drugs – a high priority among voters – remains uncertain. But states aren’t waiting.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

So far this year, 33 states have enacted a record 51 laws to address drug prices, affordability, and access. That tops the previous record of 45 laws enacted in 28 states set just last year, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy, a nonprofit advocacy group that develops model legislation and promotes such laws.

Among the new measures are those that authorize importing prescription drugs, screen for excessive price increases by drug companies, and establish oversight boards to set the prices that states will pay for drugs.

“Legislative activity in this area is escalating,” said Trish Riley, NASHP’s executive director. “This year, some states moved to launch programs that directly impact what they and consumers pay for high-cost drugs.”

And more laws could be coming before year’s end. Of the handful of states still in legislative session – including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – debate continues on dozens of prescription drug bills. In New Jersey alone, some 20 proposed laws are under consideration.

“Both Democrat and Republican leaders have shown a willingness to pursue strong measures that help consumers but also protect state taxpayer dollars,” said Hemi Tewarson, director of the National Governors Association’s health programs.

Ms. Riley, Ms. Tewarson, and others note, however, that states can go only so far in addressing rising drug prices, and that federal legislation would be necessary to have a major effect on the way the marketplace works.

Federal lawmakers are keeping a close eye on the state initiatives, Ms. Tewarson said, to gauge where legislative compromise may lie – even as Congress debates more than a dozen bills that target drug costs. Political divisiveness, a packed congressional schedule and a looming election year could stall momentum at the federal level.

The pharmaceutical industry has opposed most – though not all – state bills, said Priscilla VanderVeer, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main trade group.

“We agree that what consumers now pay for drugs out-of-pocket is a serious problem,” said Ms. VanderVeer. “Many states have passed bills that look good on paper but that we don’t believe will save consumers money.”

Limiting gag rules for pharmacists

At least 16 states have enacted 20 laws governing the behavior of pharmacy benefit managers. The so-called PBMs serve as middlemen among drugmakers, insurance companies, and pharmacies, largely with pharmaceutical industry support.

Those laws add to the 28 passed in 2018. Most of the new laws ban “gag clauses” that some PBMs impose on pharmacists. The clauses, written into pharmacy contracts, stop pharmacists from discussing with customers whether a drug’s cash price would be lower than its out-of-pocket cost under insurance.

With widespread public outrage over gag clauses pushing states to act, federal lawmakers got the message. In October, Congress passed a federal law banning such clauses in PBM-pharmacy contracts nationwide and under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The Senate passed it 98-2.

Even so, many of this year’s PBM laws contain additional gag clause limitations that go beyond the 2018 federal law.

Importing cheaper drugs

Four states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, and Vermont – this year have enacted measures to establish programs to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and, in Florida’s case, potentially other countries. Six other states are considering such legislation.

Medicines from Canada and other countries are less expensive because those nations negotiate directly with drugmakers to set prices.

“This is an area where states once feared to tread,” said Jane Horvath, a consultant with NASHP who has advised Maryland and Oregon, among other states, on prescription drug policy. “Now both Republicans and Democrats view it as a way to infuse more price competition into the marketplace.”

Hurdles remain, however. A 2003 law allows states to import cheaper drugs from Canada but only if the federal Health & Human Services Department approves a state’s plan and certifies its safety. During 2004-2009, the federal government halted nascent drug import efforts in five states.

Even so, momentum for importation has built in recent years in states and Congress as drug prices have continued to rise. And the Trump administration this summer threw its support behind the idea.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and close ally of President Donald Trump, signed his state’s measure into law on June 11, claiming he did so after Trump personally promised him that the White House would back the initiative.

On July 31, HHS announced an “action plan” to “lay the foundation for safe importation of certain prescription drugs.” The plan includes a process to authorize state initiatives. It also requires formal regulatory review, including establishing Food and Drug Administration safety criteria. That process could take up to 2 years.

Two big problems remain: In the weeks since the announcement, the Canadian government has opposed any plan that would rely solely on Canada as a source of imported drugs. The pharmaceutical industry also opposes the plan.

Creating drug affordability boards

Maryland and Maine enacted laws this year that establish state agencies to review the costs of drugs and take action against those whose price increases exceed a certain threshold.

New Jersey and Massachusetts are debating similar legislation this year.

Maryland’s law establishes a five-member board to review the list prices and costs of drugs purchased by the state and Maryland’s county and local governments. The board will probe drugs that increase in price by $3,000 or more per year and new medicines that enter the market costing $30,000 or more per year or over the course of treatment.

If approved by future legislation, upper payment limits on drugs with excessive price increases or annual costs would take effect in January 2022.

“My constituents have signaled loud and clear that bringing drug prices down is one of their top priorities,” said state Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, a Democrat representing Baltimore, who sponsored the legislation.

Maine’s law also establishes a five-member board. Beginning in 2021, the board will set annual spending targets for drugs purchased by the state and local governments.

Increasing price transparency

This year, four states – Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and Washington – became the latest to enact laws requiring drug companies to provide information to states and consumers on the list prices of drugs and planned price increases.

The majority of states now have such transparency laws, and most post the data on public websites. The details vary, but all states with such laws seek to identify drugs with price increases above 10% or more a year, and drugs with price increases above set dollar values.

Oregon’s new law, for example, requires manufacturers to notify the state 60 days in advance of any planned increase of 10% or more in the price of brand-name drugs, and any 25% or greater increase in the price of generic drugs.

“That 60-days’ notice was very important to us,” said state Rep. Andrea Salinas, a Democrat and chair of the Oregon House’s health committee, who represents Lake Oswego. “It gives doctors and patients advance notice and a chance to adjust and consider what to do.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Whether Congress will act this year to address the affordability of prescription drugs – a high priority among voters – remains uncertain. But states aren’t waiting.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

So far this year, 33 states have enacted a record 51 laws to address drug prices, affordability, and access. That tops the previous record of 45 laws enacted in 28 states set just last year, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy, a nonprofit advocacy group that develops model legislation and promotes such laws.

Among the new measures are those that authorize importing prescription drugs, screen for excessive price increases by drug companies, and establish oversight boards to set the prices that states will pay for drugs.

“Legislative activity in this area is escalating,” said Trish Riley, NASHP’s executive director. “This year, some states moved to launch programs that directly impact what they and consumers pay for high-cost drugs.”

And more laws could be coming before year’s end. Of the handful of states still in legislative session – including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – debate continues on dozens of prescription drug bills. In New Jersey alone, some 20 proposed laws are under consideration.

“Both Democrat and Republican leaders have shown a willingness to pursue strong measures that help consumers but also protect state taxpayer dollars,” said Hemi Tewarson, director of the National Governors Association’s health programs.

Ms. Riley, Ms. Tewarson, and others note, however, that states can go only so far in addressing rising drug prices, and that federal legislation would be necessary to have a major effect on the way the marketplace works.

Federal lawmakers are keeping a close eye on the state initiatives, Ms. Tewarson said, to gauge where legislative compromise may lie – even as Congress debates more than a dozen bills that target drug costs. Political divisiveness, a packed congressional schedule and a looming election year could stall momentum at the federal level.

The pharmaceutical industry has opposed most – though not all – state bills, said Priscilla VanderVeer, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main trade group.

“We agree that what consumers now pay for drugs out-of-pocket is a serious problem,” said Ms. VanderVeer. “Many states have passed bills that look good on paper but that we don’t believe will save consumers money.”

Limiting gag rules for pharmacists

At least 16 states have enacted 20 laws governing the behavior of pharmacy benefit managers. The so-called PBMs serve as middlemen among drugmakers, insurance companies, and pharmacies, largely with pharmaceutical industry support.

Those laws add to the 28 passed in 2018. Most of the new laws ban “gag clauses” that some PBMs impose on pharmacists. The clauses, written into pharmacy contracts, stop pharmacists from discussing with customers whether a drug’s cash price would be lower than its out-of-pocket cost under insurance.

With widespread public outrage over gag clauses pushing states to act, federal lawmakers got the message. In October, Congress passed a federal law banning such clauses in PBM-pharmacy contracts nationwide and under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The Senate passed it 98-2.

Even so, many of this year’s PBM laws contain additional gag clause limitations that go beyond the 2018 federal law.

Importing cheaper drugs

Four states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, and Vermont – this year have enacted measures to establish programs to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and, in Florida’s case, potentially other countries. Six other states are considering such legislation.

Medicines from Canada and other countries are less expensive because those nations negotiate directly with drugmakers to set prices.

“This is an area where states once feared to tread,” said Jane Horvath, a consultant with NASHP who has advised Maryland and Oregon, among other states, on prescription drug policy. “Now both Republicans and Democrats view it as a way to infuse more price competition into the marketplace.”

Hurdles remain, however. A 2003 law allows states to import cheaper drugs from Canada but only if the federal Health & Human Services Department approves a state’s plan and certifies its safety. During 2004-2009, the federal government halted nascent drug import efforts in five states.

Even so, momentum for importation has built in recent years in states and Congress as drug prices have continued to rise. And the Trump administration this summer threw its support behind the idea.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and close ally of President Donald Trump, signed his state’s measure into law on June 11, claiming he did so after Trump personally promised him that the White House would back the initiative.

On July 31, HHS announced an “action plan” to “lay the foundation for safe importation of certain prescription drugs.” The plan includes a process to authorize state initiatives. It also requires formal regulatory review, including establishing Food and Drug Administration safety criteria. That process could take up to 2 years.

Two big problems remain: In the weeks since the announcement, the Canadian government has opposed any plan that would rely solely on Canada as a source of imported drugs. The pharmaceutical industry also opposes the plan.

Creating drug affordability boards

Maryland and Maine enacted laws this year that establish state agencies to review the costs of drugs and take action against those whose price increases exceed a certain threshold.

New Jersey and Massachusetts are debating similar legislation this year.

Maryland’s law establishes a five-member board to review the list prices and costs of drugs purchased by the state and Maryland’s county and local governments. The board will probe drugs that increase in price by $3,000 or more per year and new medicines that enter the market costing $30,000 or more per year or over the course of treatment.

If approved by future legislation, upper payment limits on drugs with excessive price increases or annual costs would take effect in January 2022.

“My constituents have signaled loud and clear that bringing drug prices down is one of their top priorities,” said state Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, a Democrat representing Baltimore, who sponsored the legislation.

Maine’s law also establishes a five-member board. Beginning in 2021, the board will set annual spending targets for drugs purchased by the state and local governments.

Increasing price transparency

This year, four states – Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and Washington – became the latest to enact laws requiring drug companies to provide information to states and consumers on the list prices of drugs and planned price increases.

The majority of states now have such transparency laws, and most post the data on public websites. The details vary, but all states with such laws seek to identify drugs with price increases above 10% or more a year, and drugs with price increases above set dollar values.

Oregon’s new law, for example, requires manufacturers to notify the state 60 days in advance of any planned increase of 10% or more in the price of brand-name drugs, and any 25% or greater increase in the price of generic drugs.

“That 60-days’ notice was very important to us,” said state Rep. Andrea Salinas, a Democrat and chair of the Oregon House’s health committee, who represents Lake Oswego. “It gives doctors and patients advance notice and a chance to adjust and consider what to do.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Food and Drug Administration is warning that the entire class of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors used to treat advanced breast cancer may cause rare but severe inflammation of the lungs.

“We reviewed CDK 4/6 inhibitors cases from completed and ongoing clinical trials undertaken by manufacturers and their postmarket safety databases that described specific types of inflammation of the lungs, called interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Across the entire drug class, there were reports of serious cases, including fatalities,” the FDA said in a press statement.

The overall benefit of CDK 4/6 inhibitors, however, is still greater than the risks when used as prescribed, the agency said.

CDK 4/6 inhibitors are used in combination with hormone therapies to treat adults with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor 2–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. The FDA approved the CDK 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib (Ibrance) in 2015 and ribociclib (Kisqali) and abemaciclib (Verzenio) in 2017, based on improvements in progression-free survival.

Health care professionals should monitor patients regularly for pulmonary symptoms indicative of interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis. Signs and symptoms may include hypoxia, cough, dyspnea, or interstitial infiltrates on radiologic exams in patients in whom infectious, neoplastic, and other causes have been excluded. Interrupt CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment in patients who have new or worsening respiratory symptoms, and permanently discontinue treatment in patients with severe interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis, the FDA said.






 

The Food and Drug Administration is warning that the entire class of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors used to treat advanced breast cancer may cause rare but severe inflammation of the lungs.

“We reviewed CDK 4/6 inhibitors cases from completed and ongoing clinical trials undertaken by manufacturers and their postmarket safety databases that described specific types of inflammation of the lungs, called interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Across the entire drug class, there were reports of serious cases, including fatalities,” the FDA said in a press statement.

The overall benefit of CDK 4/6 inhibitors, however, is still greater than the risks when used as prescribed, the agency said.

CDK 4/6 inhibitors are used in combination with hormone therapies to treat adults with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor 2–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. The FDA approved the CDK 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib (Ibrance) in 2015 and ribociclib (Kisqali) and abemaciclib (Verzenio) in 2017, based on improvements in progression-free survival.

Health care professionals should monitor patients regularly for pulmonary symptoms indicative of interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis. Signs and symptoms may include hypoxia, cough, dyspnea, or interstitial infiltrates on radiologic exams in patients in whom infectious, neoplastic, and other causes have been excluded. Interrupt CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment in patients who have new or worsening respiratory symptoms, and permanently discontinue treatment in patients with severe interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis, the FDA said.






 

The Food and Drug Administration is warning that the entire class of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors used to treat advanced breast cancer may cause rare but severe inflammation of the lungs.

“We reviewed CDK 4/6 inhibitors cases from completed and ongoing clinical trials undertaken by manufacturers and their postmarket safety databases that described specific types of inflammation of the lungs, called interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Across the entire drug class, there were reports of serious cases, including fatalities,” the FDA said in a press statement.

The overall benefit of CDK 4/6 inhibitors, however, is still greater than the risks when used as prescribed, the agency said.

CDK 4/6 inhibitors are used in combination with hormone therapies to treat adults with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor 2–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. The FDA approved the CDK 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib (Ibrance) in 2015 and ribociclib (Kisqali) and abemaciclib (Verzenio) in 2017, based on improvements in progression-free survival.

Health care professionals should monitor patients regularly for pulmonary symptoms indicative of interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis. Signs and symptoms may include hypoxia, cough, dyspnea, or interstitial infiltrates on radiologic exams in patients in whom infectious, neoplastic, and other causes have been excluded. Interrupt CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment in patients who have new or worsening respiratory symptoms, and permanently discontinue treatment in patients with severe interstitial lung disease and/or pneumonitis, the FDA said.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tenapanor (Ibsrela) for adults with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), according to a release from the drug’s developer, Ardelyx. The approval is based on a pair of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients meeting the Rome III criteria for IBS-C. Both trials had identical 12-week treatment phases, while trial 1 had a 14-week continuation phase, and trial 2 included a 4-week withdrawal period. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in the 12-week treatment period; this was defined as a 30% reduction in abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement on average weekly for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks, compared with placebo. Both trials met this endpoint, with trial 1 showing a 37% response rate with treatment versus 24% with placebo, and trial 2 showing rates of 27% and 19%, respectively. Improvements were seen as early as week 1 and were maintained through the end of treatment.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The most common treatment-related adverse event was diarrhea, with severe diarrhea reported in 2.5% of treated patients versus 0.2% of placebo patients. Discontinuation rates were low. Tenapanor is contraindicated in IBS-C patients younger than 6 years because of concerns about dehydration, and use should be avoided in patients aged 6-12 years. Safety and efficacy has not been established in patients younger than 18 years. Tenapanor is also contraindicated in patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction.

The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tenapanor (Ibsrela) for adults with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), according to a release from the drug’s developer, Ardelyx. The approval is based on a pair of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients meeting the Rome III criteria for IBS-C. Both trials had identical 12-week treatment phases, while trial 1 had a 14-week continuation phase, and trial 2 included a 4-week withdrawal period. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in the 12-week treatment period; this was defined as a 30% reduction in abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement on average weekly for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks, compared with placebo. Both trials met this endpoint, with trial 1 showing a 37% response rate with treatment versus 24% with placebo, and trial 2 showing rates of 27% and 19%, respectively. Improvements were seen as early as week 1 and were maintained through the end of treatment.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The most common treatment-related adverse event was diarrhea, with severe diarrhea reported in 2.5% of treated patients versus 0.2% of placebo patients. Discontinuation rates were low. Tenapanor is contraindicated in IBS-C patients younger than 6 years because of concerns about dehydration, and use should be avoided in patients aged 6-12 years. Safety and efficacy has not been established in patients younger than 18 years. Tenapanor is also contraindicated in patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction.

The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tenapanor (Ibsrela) for adults with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), according to a release from the drug’s developer, Ardelyx. The approval is based on a pair of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients meeting the Rome III criteria for IBS-C. Both trials had identical 12-week treatment phases, while trial 1 had a 14-week continuation phase, and trial 2 included a 4-week withdrawal period. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in the 12-week treatment period; this was defined as a 30% reduction in abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement on average weekly for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks, compared with placebo. Both trials met this endpoint, with trial 1 showing a 37% response rate with treatment versus 24% with placebo, and trial 2 showing rates of 27% and 19%, respectively. Improvements were seen as early as week 1 and were maintained through the end of treatment.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The most common treatment-related adverse event was diarrhea, with severe diarrhea reported in 2.5% of treated patients versus 0.2% of placebo patients. Discontinuation rates were low. Tenapanor is contraindicated in IBS-C patients younger than 6 years because of concerns about dehydration, and use should be avoided in patients aged 6-12 years. Safety and efficacy has not been established in patients younger than 18 years. Tenapanor is also contraindicated in patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction.

The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

It is with great pleasure that I enter my president-elect year for the Society of Hospital Medicine! I am hopeful that this year will allow me time to get to know the organization even better than I already do, and truly understand the needs of our members so I can focus on meeting and exceeding your expectations!

I have been a hospitalist now for 17 years and have practiced in both academic tertiary care and community hospital settings. As a chief quality officer, I also work with improving quality and safety in all health care settings, including ambulatory, nursing homes, home health, and surgical centers. As such, I hope I can bring a broad lens of the medical industry to this position, improving the lives and careers of hospitalists and the patients and families they serve.

As we all know, the demands placed on hospitalists are greater than ever. With shortening length of stay, rising acuity and complexity, increasing administrative burdens, and high emphasis on care transitions, our skills (and our patience) need to rise to these increasing demands. As a member-based society, SHM (and the board of directors) seeks to ensure we are helping hospitalists be the very best they can be, regardless of hospitalist type or practice setting.

The good news is that we are still in high demand. Within the medical industry, there has been an explosive growth in the need for hospitalists, as we now occupy almost every hospital setting in the United States. But as a current commodity, it is imperative that we continue to prove the value we are adding to our patients and their families, the systems in which we work, and the industry as a whole. That is where our board and SHM come into play – to provide the resources you need to improve health care.

These resources come in the form of education and training (live or on demand); leadership and professional development; practice management assistance; advocacy work; mentored quality improvement; networking and project work (through special interest groups, local chapter meetings, and committee work); stimulation of research, new knowledge, and innovation; and promotion of evidence-based practice through our educational resources, publications, and other communications. The purpose of our existence is to provide you what you need to improve your work lives and your patients’ health.

SHM has always fostered a “big-tent” philosophy, so we will continue to explore ways to expand membership beyond “the core” of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, and reach a better understanding of what our constituents need and how we can add value to their work lives and careers. In addition to expanding membership within our borders, other expansions already include working with international chapters and members, with an “all teach, all learn” attitude to better understand mutually beneficial partnerships with international members. Through all these expansions, we will come closer to truly realizing our mission at SHM, which is to “promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients.”

My humble hope, as it is with any of my leadership positions, is to leave SHM better than I found it. As such, please contact me at any time if you have ideas or suggestions on how we can better help you be successful in improving the care for your patients, your systems, and health care as a whole. I look forward to serving you in this incredible journey and mission.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is the medical editor of the Hospitalist, and president-elect of SHM.

It is with great pleasure that I enter my president-elect year for the Society of Hospital Medicine! I am hopeful that this year will allow me time to get to know the organization even better than I already do, and truly understand the needs of our members so I can focus on meeting and exceeding your expectations!

I have been a hospitalist now for 17 years and have practiced in both academic tertiary care and community hospital settings. As a chief quality officer, I also work with improving quality and safety in all health care settings, including ambulatory, nursing homes, home health, and surgical centers. As such, I hope I can bring a broad lens of the medical industry to this position, improving the lives and careers of hospitalists and the patients and families they serve.

As we all know, the demands placed on hospitalists are greater than ever. With shortening length of stay, rising acuity and complexity, increasing administrative burdens, and high emphasis on care transitions, our skills (and our patience) need to rise to these increasing demands. As a member-based society, SHM (and the board of directors) seeks to ensure we are helping hospitalists be the very best they can be, regardless of hospitalist type or practice setting.

The good news is that we are still in high demand. Within the medical industry, there has been an explosive growth in the need for hospitalists, as we now occupy almost every hospital setting in the United States. But as a current commodity, it is imperative that we continue to prove the value we are adding to our patients and their families, the systems in which we work, and the industry as a whole. That is where our board and SHM come into play – to provide the resources you need to improve health care.

These resources come in the form of education and training (live or on demand); leadership and professional development; practice management assistance; advocacy work; mentored quality improvement; networking and project work (through special interest groups, local chapter meetings, and committee work); stimulation of research, new knowledge, and innovation; and promotion of evidence-based practice through our educational resources, publications, and other communications. The purpose of our existence is to provide you what you need to improve your work lives and your patients’ health.

SHM has always fostered a “big-tent” philosophy, so we will continue to explore ways to expand membership beyond “the core” of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, and reach a better understanding of what our constituents need and how we can add value to their work lives and careers. In addition to expanding membership within our borders, other expansions already include working with international chapters and members, with an “all teach, all learn” attitude to better understand mutually beneficial partnerships with international members. Through all these expansions, we will come closer to truly realizing our mission at SHM, which is to “promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients.”

My humble hope, as it is with any of my leadership positions, is to leave SHM better than I found it. As such, please contact me at any time if you have ideas or suggestions on how we can better help you be successful in improving the care for your patients, your systems, and health care as a whole. I look forward to serving you in this incredible journey and mission.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is the medical editor of the Hospitalist, and president-elect of SHM.

It is with great pleasure that I enter my president-elect year for the Society of Hospital Medicine! I am hopeful that this year will allow me time to get to know the organization even better than I already do, and truly understand the needs of our members so I can focus on meeting and exceeding your expectations!

I have been a hospitalist now for 17 years and have practiced in both academic tertiary care and community hospital settings. As a chief quality officer, I also work with improving quality and safety in all health care settings, including ambulatory, nursing homes, home health, and surgical centers. As such, I hope I can bring a broad lens of the medical industry to this position, improving the lives and careers of hospitalists and the patients and families they serve.

As we all know, the demands placed on hospitalists are greater than ever. With shortening length of stay, rising acuity and complexity, increasing administrative burdens, and high emphasis on care transitions, our skills (and our patience) need to rise to these increasing demands. As a member-based society, SHM (and the board of directors) seeks to ensure we are helping hospitalists be the very best they can be, regardless of hospitalist type or practice setting.

The good news is that we are still in high demand. Within the medical industry, there has been an explosive growth in the need for hospitalists, as we now occupy almost every hospital setting in the United States. But as a current commodity, it is imperative that we continue to prove the value we are adding to our patients and their families, the systems in which we work, and the industry as a whole. That is where our board and SHM come into play – to provide the resources you need to improve health care.

These resources come in the form of education and training (live or on demand); leadership and professional development; practice management assistance; advocacy work; mentored quality improvement; networking and project work (through special interest groups, local chapter meetings, and committee work); stimulation of research, new knowledge, and innovation; and promotion of evidence-based practice through our educational resources, publications, and other communications. The purpose of our existence is to provide you what you need to improve your work lives and your patients’ health.

SHM has always fostered a “big-tent” philosophy, so we will continue to explore ways to expand membership beyond “the core” of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, and reach a better understanding of what our constituents need and how we can add value to their work lives and careers. In addition to expanding membership within our borders, other expansions already include working with international chapters and members, with an “all teach, all learn” attitude to better understand mutually beneficial partnerships with international members. Through all these expansions, we will come closer to truly realizing our mission at SHM, which is to “promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients.”

My humble hope, as it is with any of my leadership positions, is to leave SHM better than I found it. As such, please contact me at any time if you have ideas or suggestions on how we can better help you be successful in improving the care for your patients, your systems, and health care as a whole. I look forward to serving you in this incredible journey and mission.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is the medical editor of the Hospitalist, and president-elect of SHM.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, Zantac and other ranitidine medicines contain low levels of a nitrosamine impurity known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

“NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement issued on Sept. 13, 2019. “The FDA has been investigating NDMA and other nitrosamine impurities in blood pressure and heart failure medicines called Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) since last year. In the case of ARBs, the FDA has recommended numerous recalls as it discovered unacceptable levels of nitrosamines.”

Dr. Woodcock said that the agency is working with industry partners to determine whether the low levels of NDMA in ranitidine pose a risk to patients, and it plans to post that information when it becomes available. For now, “patients should be able to trust that their medicines are as safe as they can be and that the benefits of taking them outweigh any risk to their health,” she said. “Although NDMA may cause harm in large amounts, the levels the FDA is finding in ranitidine from preliminary tests barely exceed amounts you might expect to find in common foods.”

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that the FDA is not suggesting that individuals stop taking ranitidine at this time. “However, patients taking prescription ranitidine who wish to discontinue use should talk to their health care professional about other treatment options,” she said. “People taking OTC ranitidine could consider using other OTC medicines approved for their condition. There are multiple drugs on the market that are approved for the same or similar uses as ranitidine.”

She advised consumers and health care professionals to report any adverse reactions with ranitidine to the FDA’s MedWatch program to help the agency better understand the problem.

[email protected]

According to the Food and Drug Administration, Zantac and other ranitidine medicines contain low levels of a nitrosamine impurity known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

“NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement issued on Sept. 13, 2019. “The FDA has been investigating NDMA and other nitrosamine impurities in blood pressure and heart failure medicines called Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) since last year. In the case of ARBs, the FDA has recommended numerous recalls as it discovered unacceptable levels of nitrosamines.”

Dr. Woodcock said that the agency is working with industry partners to determine whether the low levels of NDMA in ranitidine pose a risk to patients, and it plans to post that information when it becomes available. For now, “patients should be able to trust that their medicines are as safe as they can be and that the benefits of taking them outweigh any risk to their health,” she said. “Although NDMA may cause harm in large amounts, the levels the FDA is finding in ranitidine from preliminary tests barely exceed amounts you might expect to find in common foods.”

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that the FDA is not suggesting that individuals stop taking ranitidine at this time. “However, patients taking prescription ranitidine who wish to discontinue use should talk to their health care professional about other treatment options,” she said. “People taking OTC ranitidine could consider using other OTC medicines approved for their condition. There are multiple drugs on the market that are approved for the same or similar uses as ranitidine.”

She advised consumers and health care professionals to report any adverse reactions with ranitidine to the FDA’s MedWatch program to help the agency better understand the problem.

[email protected]

According to the Food and Drug Administration, Zantac and other ranitidine medicines contain low levels of a nitrosamine impurity known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

“NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement issued on Sept. 13, 2019. “The FDA has been investigating NDMA and other nitrosamine impurities in blood pressure and heart failure medicines called Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) since last year. In the case of ARBs, the FDA has recommended numerous recalls as it discovered unacceptable levels of nitrosamines.”

Dr. Woodcock said that the agency is working with industry partners to determine whether the low levels of NDMA in ranitidine pose a risk to patients, and it plans to post that information when it becomes available. For now, “patients should be able to trust that their medicines are as safe as they can be and that the benefits of taking them outweigh any risk to their health,” she said. “Although NDMA may cause harm in large amounts, the levels the FDA is finding in ranitidine from preliminary tests barely exceed amounts you might expect to find in common foods.”

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that the FDA is not suggesting that individuals stop taking ranitidine at this time. “However, patients taking prescription ranitidine who wish to discontinue use should talk to their health care professional about other treatment options,” she said. “People taking OTC ranitidine could consider using other OTC medicines approved for their condition. There are multiple drugs on the market that are approved for the same or similar uses as ranitidine.”

She advised consumers and health care professionals to report any adverse reactions with ranitidine to the FDA’s MedWatch program to help the agency better understand the problem.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

Participation in sports, competitive team sports in particular, is very good for the physical well-being and emotional development of children and adolescents. Specifically, there is growing evidence that sports promote healthy development socially and emotionally, protecting against drug use, poor body image, and against psychiatric illness in youth.

©photoaged/FOTOLIA

Sustaining academic productivity and team sports is demanding. By the middle of autumn, the amount of homework can begin to wear on teenagers, and the burden of getting them to practices and games can wear on parents. It can be very tempting for youth and their parents to drop team sports in high school, and turn their time and effort more completely to the serious work of school. But advocating for your patients and their parents to protect the time for team sports participation will pay dividends in the health and well-being of your patients and may even support rather than detract from academic performance.

The benefits of regular exercise for physical health are well established. Most teenagers do not get the recommended 60 minutes daily of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Participating in a team sport enforces this level of activity, in ways that parents typically don’t have to enforce. This level of physical activity typically promotes healthy eating and a healthy weight. Daily exercise promotes adequate, restful sleep, one of the most critical (and usually compromised) components of adolescent health. These exercise habits are easier to maintain into adulthood – when they protect against cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases – if they have been established early.

Beyond physical health, participation in team sports has been shown to promote good mental health and protect against psychiatric illnesses. High school athletes have lower rates of anxiety and depression than those of their peers. They generally are less likely to use drugs and more likely to have a healthy body image than are their nonathlete peers. It is worth noting that the mental health benefits of team sports are even more robust than the benefits of solitary exercise in teenagers,¹ possibly because of the social connections to peers and adults that grow out of them.

While student athletes benefit from the opportunity to develop deep social connections – ones forged in the intense setting of competition, collaboration, and sustained teamwork – they also benefit from strong mentorship connections with adults, including coaches, trainers, and even the parents of teammates who participate in all of the efforts that go into team sports in youth. While it might seem that all of the mental and physical benefits must be offset by lower academic performance, it turns out that is not the case. It is well established that regular exercise promotes healthy cognitive function, including processing speed, working memory, and even creativity. According to data from the Monitoring the Future survey, adolescents who participated in team sports were more likely to have As and to plan on attending a 4-year college than were their nonathlete peers.

Beyond the physiologic and social benefits of exercise, team sports provide adolescents with a powerful opportunity to get comfortable with failure. Even the best athletes cannot win all the time, and sports are unique in building failure into the work. Practice is almost entirely about failure, gradually getting better at something that is difficult. While everyone aims to win, they also prepare to struggle and lose. Athletes must learn how to persevere through a match that they are losing, and then pick themselves up and prepare again for the next match. When young people get comfortable with facing and managing challenges, managing setbacks and failure, they are ready to face the larger challenges, setbacks, and failures of adult life.

Team sports enable young people to learn what they are actually capable of managing – they build resilience. This promotion of resilience is illustrated in recent research that demonstrated that team sports may be especially protective for young people who have experienced trauma (adverse childhood experiences, or “ACEs”). Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, followed teenagers with and without high ACE scores into their mid 20s. They found that those with high ACE scores who participated in team sports as adolescents were 24% less likely to have depression and 30% less likely to have anxiety diagnoses as adults, compared with their peers who did not participate in team sports.²

Of course, the details matter in team sports. If your patients are participating and they or their parents are worried about spending so much time on something other than homework, talk to them about all of these exceptional benefits of team sports. But the culture of the team matters also. Some teams may be focused on winning at all costs, or have a practice culture that is humiliating or bullying. Some teams may have a culture of partying after games, with binge drinking and drug use. Ask your patients about whether they feel they are respected members of the team, and if effort and sportsmanship are valued as well as performance. Do they trust their coaches? Do they believe their coaches know and care about them? If your patients are not participating in a team sport, encourage them to find one (or more) that engage their interests. The benefits of track and field, crew, and tennis can be just as robust as the benefits of football or soccer. Speak with your patients and their parents about the payoff for their physical, mental, and developmental health the time and effort they are putting into a team sport can provide.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Int J Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Aug 15. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-98.

2. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jul 1;173(7):681-8.

Participation in sports, competitive team sports in particular, is very good for the physical well-being and emotional development of children and adolescents. Specifically, there is growing evidence that sports promote healthy development socially and emotionally, protecting against drug use, poor body image, and against psychiatric illness in youth.

©photoaged/FOTOLIA

Sustaining academic productivity and team sports is demanding. By the middle of autumn, the amount of homework can begin to wear on teenagers, and the burden of getting them to practices and games can wear on parents. It can be very tempting for youth and their parents to drop team sports in high school, and turn their time and effort more completely to the serious work of school. But advocating for your patients and their parents to protect the time for team sports participation will pay dividends in the health and well-being of your patients and may even support rather than detract from academic performance.

The benefits of regular exercise for physical health are well established. Most teenagers do not get the recommended 60 minutes daily of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Participating in a team sport enforces this level of activity, in ways that parents typically don’t have to enforce. This level of physical activity typically promotes healthy eating and a healthy weight. Daily exercise promotes adequate, restful sleep, one of the most critical (and usually compromised) components of adolescent health. These exercise habits are easier to maintain into adulthood – when they protect against cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases – if they have been established early.

Beyond physical health, participation in team sports has been shown to promote good mental health and protect against psychiatric illnesses. High school athletes have lower rates of anxiety and depression than those of their peers. They generally are less likely to use drugs and more likely to have a healthy body image than are their nonathlete peers. It is worth noting that the mental health benefits of team sports are even more robust than the benefits of solitary exercise in teenagers,¹ possibly because of the social connections to peers and adults that grow out of them.

While student athletes benefit from the opportunity to develop deep social connections – ones forged in the intense setting of competition, collaboration, and sustained teamwork – they also benefit from strong mentorship connections with adults, including coaches, trainers, and even the parents of teammates who participate in all of the efforts that go into team sports in youth. While it might seem that all of the mental and physical benefits must be offset by lower academic performance, it turns out that is not the case. It is well established that regular exercise promotes healthy cognitive function, including processing speed, working memory, and even creativity. According to data from the Monitoring the Future survey, adolescents who participated in team sports were more likely to have As and to plan on attending a 4-year college than were their nonathlete peers.

Beyond the physiologic and social benefits of exercise, team sports provide adolescents with a powerful opportunity to get comfortable with failure. Even the best athletes cannot win all the time, and sports are unique in building failure into the work. Practice is almost entirely about failure, gradually getting better at something that is difficult. While everyone aims to win, they also prepare to struggle and lose. Athletes must learn how to persevere through a match that they are losing, and then pick themselves up and prepare again for the next match. When young people get comfortable with facing and managing challenges, managing setbacks and failure, they are ready to face the larger challenges, setbacks, and failures of adult life.

Team sports enable young people to learn what they are actually capable of managing – they build resilience. This promotion of resilience is illustrated in recent research that demonstrated that team sports may be especially protective for young people who have experienced trauma (adverse childhood experiences, or “ACEs”). Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, followed teenagers with and without high ACE scores into their mid 20s. They found that those with high ACE scores who participated in team sports as adolescents were 24% less likely to have depression and 30% less likely to have anxiety diagnoses as adults, compared with their peers who did not participate in team sports.²

Of course, the details matter in team sports. If your patients are participating and they or their parents are worried about spending so much time on something other than homework, talk to them about all of these exceptional benefits of team sports. But the culture of the team matters also. Some teams may be focused on winning at all costs, or have a practice culture that is humiliating or bullying. Some teams may have a culture of partying after games, with binge drinking and drug use. Ask your patients about whether they feel they are respected members of the team, and if effort and sportsmanship are valued as well as performance. Do they trust their coaches? Do they believe their coaches know and care about them? If your patients are not participating in a team sport, encourage them to find one (or more) that engage their interests. The benefits of track and field, crew, and tennis can be just as robust as the benefits of football or soccer. Speak with your patients and their parents about the payoff for their physical, mental, and developmental health the time and effort they are putting into a team sport can provide.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Int J Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Aug 15. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-98.

2. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jul 1;173(7):681-8.

Participation in sports, competitive team sports in particular, is very good for the physical well-being and emotional development of children and adolescents. Specifically, there is growing evidence that sports promote healthy development socially and emotionally, protecting against drug use, poor body image, and against psychiatric illness in youth.

©photoaged/FOTOLIA

Sustaining academic productivity and team sports is demanding. By the middle of autumn, the amount of homework can begin to wear on teenagers, and the burden of getting them to practices and games can wear on parents. It can be very tempting for youth and their parents to drop team sports in high school, and turn their time and effort more completely to the serious work of school. But advocating for your patients and their parents to protect the time for team sports participation will pay dividends in the health and well-being of your patients and may even support rather than detract from academic performance.

The benefits of regular exercise for physical health are well established. Most teenagers do not get the recommended 60 minutes daily of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Participating in a team sport enforces this level of activity, in ways that parents typically don’t have to enforce. This level of physical activity typically promotes healthy eating and a healthy weight. Daily exercise promotes adequate, restful sleep, one of the most critical (and usually compromised) components of adolescent health. These exercise habits are easier to maintain into adulthood – when they protect against cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases – if they have been established early.

Beyond physical health, participation in team sports has been shown to promote good mental health and protect against psychiatric illnesses. High school athletes have lower rates of anxiety and depression than those of their peers. They generally are less likely to use drugs and more likely to have a healthy body image than are their nonathlete peers. It is worth noting that the mental health benefits of team sports are even more robust than the benefits of solitary exercise in teenagers,¹ possibly because of the social connections to peers and adults that grow out of them.

While student athletes benefit from the opportunity to develop deep social connections – ones forged in the intense setting of competition, collaboration, and sustained teamwork – they also benefit from strong mentorship connections with adults, including coaches, trainers, and even the parents of teammates who participate in all of the efforts that go into team sports in youth. While it might seem that all of the mental and physical benefits must be offset by lower academic performance, it turns out that is not the case. It is well established that regular exercise promotes healthy cognitive function, including processing speed, working memory, and even creativity. According to data from the Monitoring the Future survey, adolescents who participated in team sports were more likely to have As and to plan on attending a 4-year college than were their nonathlete peers.

Beyond the physiologic and social benefits of exercise, team sports provide adolescents with a powerful opportunity to get comfortable with failure. Even the best athletes cannot win all the time, and sports are unique in building failure into the work. Practice is almost entirely about failure, gradually getting better at something that is difficult. While everyone aims to win, they also prepare to struggle and lose. Athletes must learn how to persevere through a match that they are losing, and then pick themselves up and prepare again for the next match. When young people get comfortable with facing and managing challenges, managing setbacks and failure, they are ready to face the larger challenges, setbacks, and failures of adult life.

Team sports enable young people to learn what they are actually capable of managing – they build resilience. This promotion of resilience is illustrated in recent research that demonstrated that team sports may be especially protective for young people who have experienced trauma (adverse childhood experiences, or “ACEs”). Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, followed teenagers with and without high ACE scores into their mid 20s. They found that those with high ACE scores who participated in team sports as adolescents were 24% less likely to have depression and 30% less likely to have anxiety diagnoses as adults, compared with their peers who did not participate in team sports.²

Of course, the details matter in team sports. If your patients are participating and they or their parents are worried about spending so much time on something other than homework, talk to them about all of these exceptional benefits of team sports. But the culture of the team matters also. Some teams may be focused on winning at all costs, or have a practice culture that is humiliating or bullying. Some teams may have a culture of partying after games, with binge drinking and drug use. Ask your patients about whether they feel they are respected members of the team, and if effort and sportsmanship are valued as well as performance. Do they trust their coaches? Do they believe their coaches know and care about them? If your patients are not participating in a team sport, encourage them to find one (or more) that engage their interests. The benefits of track and field, crew, and tennis can be just as robust as the benefits of football or soccer. Speak with your patients and their parents about the payoff for their physical, mental, and developmental health the time and effort they are putting into a team sport can provide.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Int J Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Aug 15. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-98.

2. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jul 1;173(7):681-8.

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.

Loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene are more common among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who have clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the mutations fall a little short of serving as clinical biomarkers, investigators say.

Among patients with metastatic ccRCC enrolled in a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial comparing nivolumab (Opdivo) with everolimus (Afinitor) in patients who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy, patients with responses to nivolumab were more than twice as likely as nonresponders to have a truncating loss-of-function mutation in PBRM1, reported Toni K. Choueiri, MD, and colleagues from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Patients with PBRM1 mutations were also more likely to have a clinical benefit (complete/partial response, or stable disease with tumor shrinkage and progression-free survival [PFS] of at least 6 months) as well as better PFS and overall survival than patients without mutations.

“The association of PBRM1 truncating mutations with response to anti–[programmed death-1] therapy was confirmed in an independent ccRCC cohort. However, key limitations restrict use of PBRM1 mutations as a clinical biomarker,” they wrote in a research letter to JAMA Oncology.

Those limitations include an only modest effect of mutations on response and survival, a lack of evidence for a PBRM1 mutation effect in the first-line setting, and a possible association between mutations and benefit from prior antiangiogenic therapies, they acknowledged.

Dr. Choueiri was a coauthor of a previous study of genomic correlates of response to ICIs in ccRCC, which found that PBRM1 loss may influence response to checkpoint inhibitors by altering global tumor-cell expression.

In the current study, he and his colleagues looked at archival tumor tissue from an independent cohort of 382 patients who were part of a larger phase 3 trial. Of this group, 189 were treated with nivolumab, and 193 were treated with everolimus. PBRM1 mutations were identified in 55 of the nivolumab-treated patients (29%) and in 45 of the everolimus-treated patients (23%).

When they looked at clinical responses, they found that 15 of 38 patients with response to nivolumab (39%) had truncating PBRM1 mutations, compared with 16 of 74 nonresponding patients (22%), which translated into an odds ratio for response of 2.34 (P = .04).

Similarly, PBRM1 mutations among nivolumab-treated patients were significantly associated with clinical benefit (OR, 2.14; P = .0497), PFS (hazard ratio for progression, 0.67; P = .03), and overall survival (HR, 0.65; P = .03).

In contrast, there were no significant associations in everolimus-treated patients between PBRM1 mutations and either response, PFS, or overall survival.

“The concomitant presence of other cellular or molecular features may further influence the findings described herein. Nonetheless, this validated association between PBRM1 alterations and ICI response in a large randomized study represents a further step toward the development of genomic predictors for immunotherapies in advanced RCC,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Choueiri disclosed personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and fees and grants from other companies. One coauthor is a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee and shareholder.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3158.