Updated Guidelines on Peanut Allergy Prevention in Infants With Atopic Dermatitis

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:51
Display Headline
Updated Guidelines on Peanut Allergy Prevention in Infants With Atopic Dermatitis

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”1 In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.2

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States3 are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,4 a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.4 Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.8 Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.9

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”10 More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”11

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 199812 and the United States in 200013 recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.14 Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.15 As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.4 The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).4 What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”4 This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.3 Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kUA/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.3

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.4

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.3 For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.3

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

References
  1. Encyclopaedia Galactica [television transcript]. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Public Broadcasting Service. December 14, 1980.
  2. Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, et al. Reviewing the reviews: how strong is the evidence? how clear are the conclusions? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:457-466.
  3. Togias A, Cooper SF, Acebal ML, et al. Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–sponsored expert panel.J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139:29-44.
  4. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med2015;372:803-813.
  5. Høst A, Koletzko B, Dreborg S, et al. Dietary products used in infants for treatment and prevention of food allergy. joint statement of the European Society for Paediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ESPACI) Committee on Hypoallergenic Formulas and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee on Nutrition. Arch Dis Child. 1999;81:80-84.
  6. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Nutrition. hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  7. Fiocchi A, Assa’ad A, Bahna S; Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee; American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Food allergy and the introduction of solid foods to infants: a consensus document. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:10-20.
  8. Thompson MM, Hanifin JM. Effective therapy of childhood atopic dermatitis allays food allergy concerns. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 suppl 2):S214-S219.
  9. Johnston GA, Bilbao RM, Graham-Brown RA. The use of dietary manipulation by parents of children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:1186-1189.
  10. Mackenzie S. The inaugural address on the advantages to be derived from the study of dermatology. BMJ. 1830;1:193-197.
  11. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al; NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(6 suppl):S1-S58. 
  12. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Peanut Allergy. London, England: Department of Health; 1998.
  13. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  14. Gruchalla RS, Sampson HA. Preventing peanut allergy through early consumption—ready for prime time? N Engl J Med. 2015;372:875-877.
  15. Lim NR, Lohman ME, Lio PA. The role of elimination diets in atopic dermatitis: a comprehensive review. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017;34:516-527.
  16. Wong CC, Allen KJ, Orchard D. Changes to infant feeding guidelines: relevance to dermatologists. Australas J Dermatol. 2017;58:e171-e175.
  17. Martin PE, Eckert JK, Koplin JJ, et al. Which infants with eczema are at risk of food allergy? results from a population-based cohort. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45:255-264.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

From the Departments of Dermatology and Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago; and the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Peter A. Lio, MD, Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago, 363 W Erie St, Ste 350, Chicago, IL 60654 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
398-399
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

From the Departments of Dermatology and Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago; and the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Peter A. Lio, MD, Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago, 363 W Erie St, Ste 350, Chicago, IL 60654 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

 

From the Departments of Dermatology and Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago; and the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Peter A. Lio, MD, Medical Dermatology Associates of Chicago, 363 W Erie St, Ste 350, Chicago, IL 60654 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”1 In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.2

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States3 are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,4 a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.4 Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.8 Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.9

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”10 More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”11

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 199812 and the United States in 200013 recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.14 Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.15 As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.4 The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).4 What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”4 This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.3 Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kUA/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.3

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.4

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.3 For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.3

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

It has been said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”1 In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to follow a similar standard, with an emphasis on waiting for multiple studies with good-quality data and high levels of agreement before changing any aspect of our clinical practice. The ostensible purpose is that studies can be flawed, conclusions can be incorrect, or biases can be overlooked. In such cases, acting on questionable results could imperil patients. It is for this reason that so many review articles sometimes frustratingly seem to conclude that further evidence is needed.2

Based on this standard, recently published addendum guidelines from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for prevention of peanut allergy in the United States3 are somewhat striking in that they make fairly bold recommendations based on results from the 2015 Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,4 a randomized trial evaluating early peanut introduction as a preventive strategy for peanut allergy. Of note, this study was not placebo controlled, was conducted at only 1 site in the United Kingdom, and only included 640 children, though the number of participants was admittedly large for this type of study.4 Arguably, the LEAP study alone does not provide enough evidence upon which to base what essentially amounts to an about-face in the official recommendations for prevention of peanut and other food allergies, which emphasized delayed introduction of high-risk foods, especially in high-risk individuals.5-7 To better understand this shift, we need to briefly explore the context of the addendum guidelines.

As many as one-third of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have food allergies, thus diet often is invoked by patients and providers alike as an underlying cause of the disease.8 Many patients in my practice are so focused on potential food allergies that actual treatment of the affected skin is marginalized and often dismissed as a stopgap that does not address the root of the problem. A 2004 study of 100 children with AD found that diet was manipulated by the parents in 75% of patients in an attempt to manage the disease.9

Patients are not the only ones who consider food allergies to be a driving force in AD. The medical literature indicates that this theory has existed for centuries; for instance, with regard to the relationship between diet and AD, the author of an article from 1830 quipped, “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held . . . than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter . . .”10 More apropos perhaps is a statement from the 2010 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guidelines on food allergy management, which noted that while the expert group “does not mean to imply that AD results from [food allergies], the role of [food allergies] in the pathogenesis and severity of this condition remains controversial.”11

Prior to the LEAP study, food allergy recommendations for clinical practice in the United Kingdom in 199812 and the United States in 200013 recommended excluding allergenic foods (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, milk, eggs) from the diet in infants with a family history of atopy until 3 years of age. However, those recommendations did not seem to be working, when in fact just the opposite was happening. From 1997 until the LEAP study was conducted in 2015, the prevalence of peanut allergy more than quadrupled and became the leading cause of anaphylaxis and death related to food allergy.14 Additionally, study after study concluded that elimination diets did not seem to help most patients with AD.15 As is required in good scientific thinking, when a hypothesis is proven false, other approaches must be considered.

The idea arose that perhaps delaying introduction of allergenic foods was the opposite of the answer.4 The LEAP study tested the notion that peanut allergies are rare in countries where peanuts are introduced early and if telling families to delay introduction of peanuts in infants might actually be causing development of a peanut allergy, and the tests bore fruit. It was found that giving infants peanut-containing foods resulted in a more than 80% reduction in peanut allergy at 5 years of age (P<.001).4 What was perhaps even more interesting was the connection between AD and peanut allergy. An important idea articulated in the LEAP study is in some ways revolutionary: Rather than foods causing AD, it could be that “early environmental exposure (through the skin) to peanut may account for early sensitization, whereas early oral exposure may lead to immune tolerance.”4 This concept—that impaired eczematous skin may actually lead to the development of food allergies—turns the whole thing upside down.

What do these updated guidelines actually suggest? The first guideline focuses on infants with severe AD, egg allergy, or both, who therefore are thought to be at the highest risk for developing peanut allergy.3 Because of the higher baseline risk in this subgroup, measurement of the peanut-specific IgE (peanut sIgE) level, skin prick testing (SPT), or both is strongly recommended before introducing peanut protein into the diet. This testing can be performed by qualified providers as a screening measure, but if positive (≥0.35 kUA/L for peanut sIgE or >2 mm on the peanut SPT), referral to an allergy specialist is warranted. If these studies are negative, it is thought the likelihood of peanut allergy is low, and it is recommended that caregivers introduce age-appropriate peanut-containing foods (eg, peanut butter snack puffs, diluted peanut butter) as early as 4 to 6 months of age. The second guideline recommends that peanut-containing foods should be introduced into the diets of infants with mild or moderate AD at approximately 6 months of age without the need for prior screening via peanut sIgE or SPT. Lastly, the third guideline recommends that caregivers freely introduce peanut-containing foods together with other solid foods in infants without AD or food allergies in accordance with family preference.3

The results of the LEAP study are certainly exciting, and although the theoretical basis makes good scientific sense and the updated guidelines truly address an important and growing problem, there are several issues with this update that are worth considering. Given the constraints of the LEAP study, it certainly seems possible that the results will not be applicable to all populations or foods. More research is needed to ensure that this robust finding applies to other children and to explore the introduction of other allergenic foods, which the LEAP study investigators also emphasized.4

In fairness, the updated guidelines clearly state the quality of evidence of their recommendations and make it clear that expert opinion is playing a large role.3 For the first guideline regarding recommendations for those with severe AD and/or egg allergy, the quality of evidence is deemed moderate, while the contribution of expert opinion is listed as significant. For the second and third guidelines regarding recommendations for mild to moderate AD and those without AD, respectively, the quality of evidence is low and expert opinion is again listed as significant.3

Importantly, delineating severe AD from moderate disease—which is necessary because only severe AD warrants evaluation with peanut sIgE and/or SPT—can be difficult, as the distinction relies on a degree of subjectivity that may vary between specialists. Indeed, 2 publications suggest extending the definition of severe AD to include infants with early-onset AD (<3 months of age) and those with moderate AD not responding to treatment.16,17

Despite these reservations, the updated guidelines represent a breakthrough in understanding in an area truly in need of advancement. Although the evidence may not be exactly extraordinary, the context for these developments and our deeper understanding suggest that we do indeed live in extraordinary times. 

References
  1. Encyclopaedia Galactica [television transcript]. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Public Broadcasting Service. December 14, 1980.
  2. Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, et al. Reviewing the reviews: how strong is the evidence? how clear are the conclusions? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:457-466.
  3. Togias A, Cooper SF, Acebal ML, et al. Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–sponsored expert panel.J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139:29-44.
  4. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med2015;372:803-813.
  5. Høst A, Koletzko B, Dreborg S, et al. Dietary products used in infants for treatment and prevention of food allergy. joint statement of the European Society for Paediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ESPACI) Committee on Hypoallergenic Formulas and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee on Nutrition. Arch Dis Child. 1999;81:80-84.
  6. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Nutrition. hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  7. Fiocchi A, Assa’ad A, Bahna S; Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee; American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Food allergy and the introduction of solid foods to infants: a consensus document. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:10-20.
  8. Thompson MM, Hanifin JM. Effective therapy of childhood atopic dermatitis allays food allergy concerns. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 suppl 2):S214-S219.
  9. Johnston GA, Bilbao RM, Graham-Brown RA. The use of dietary manipulation by parents of children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:1186-1189.
  10. Mackenzie S. The inaugural address on the advantages to be derived from the study of dermatology. BMJ. 1830;1:193-197.
  11. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al; NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(6 suppl):S1-S58. 
  12. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Peanut Allergy. London, England: Department of Health; 1998.
  13. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  14. Gruchalla RS, Sampson HA. Preventing peanut allergy through early consumption—ready for prime time? N Engl J Med. 2015;372:875-877.
  15. Lim NR, Lohman ME, Lio PA. The role of elimination diets in atopic dermatitis: a comprehensive review. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017;34:516-527.
  16. Wong CC, Allen KJ, Orchard D. Changes to infant feeding guidelines: relevance to dermatologists. Australas J Dermatol. 2017;58:e171-e175.
  17. Martin PE, Eckert JK, Koplin JJ, et al. Which infants with eczema are at risk of food allergy? results from a population-based cohort. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45:255-264.
References
  1. Encyclopaedia Galactica [television transcript]. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Public Broadcasting Service. December 14, 1980.
  2. Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, et al. Reviewing the reviews: how strong is the evidence? how clear are the conclusions? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:457-466.
  3. Togias A, Cooper SF, Acebal ML, et al. Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–sponsored expert panel.J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139:29-44.
  4. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med2015;372:803-813.
  5. Høst A, Koletzko B, Dreborg S, et al. Dietary products used in infants for treatment and prevention of food allergy. joint statement of the European Society for Paediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ESPACI) Committee on Hypoallergenic Formulas and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee on Nutrition. Arch Dis Child. 1999;81:80-84.
  6. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Nutrition. hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  7. Fiocchi A, Assa’ad A, Bahna S; Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee; American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Food allergy and the introduction of solid foods to infants: a consensus document. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:10-20.
  8. Thompson MM, Hanifin JM. Effective therapy of childhood atopic dermatitis allays food allergy concerns. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 suppl 2):S214-S219.
  9. Johnston GA, Bilbao RM, Graham-Brown RA. The use of dietary manipulation by parents of children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:1186-1189.
  10. Mackenzie S. The inaugural address on the advantages to be derived from the study of dermatology. BMJ. 1830;1:193-197.
  11. Boyce JA, Assa’ad A, Burks AW, et al; NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(6 suppl):S1-S58. 
  12. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Peanut Allergy. London, England: Department of Health; 1998.
  13. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106(2, pt 1):346-349.
  14. Gruchalla RS, Sampson HA. Preventing peanut allergy through early consumption—ready for prime time? N Engl J Med. 2015;372:875-877.
  15. Lim NR, Lohman ME, Lio PA. The role of elimination diets in atopic dermatitis: a comprehensive review. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017;34:516-527.
  16. Wong CC, Allen KJ, Orchard D. Changes to infant feeding guidelines: relevance to dermatologists. Australas J Dermatol. 2017;58:e171-e175.
  17. Martin PE, Eckert JK, Koplin JJ, et al. Which infants with eczema are at risk of food allergy? results from a population-based cohort. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45:255-264.
Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Page Number
398-399
Page Number
398-399
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Updated Guidelines on Peanut Allergy Prevention in Infants With Atopic Dermatitis
Display Headline
Updated Guidelines on Peanut Allergy Prevention in Infants With Atopic Dermatitis
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Statin effect in prostate cancer may be caused by reduced inflammation

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:43

 

Long-term use of statins may protect against lethal forms of prostate cancer by altering the inflammatory profile of the tumor microenvironment, according to the results of a new genetic analysis of prostate cancers in men in the Health Professionals Follow Up Study.

A previous analysis from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study published in 2015 showed no difference in the risk of lethal prostate cancer for those who began using statins after diagnosis of their tumors.

Jim Kling/MDedge News
Dr. Emma Allott
The current study examined 5,792 diagnoses of prostate cancer among 44,076 men; 13% of these cancers metastasized or led to death.

A genetic analysis of these lethal cases revealed that patients taking long-term statins had a lower incidence of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)–null cancers, which are associated with worse outcomes. Integrating molecular and epidemiologic data, PTEN and PI3K (phosphatidylinositol) signaling and inflammation and immune activation appear to be two potential mechanisms contributing to this association.

Genetic analysis of normal prostate tissue also showed unique traits among statin users. “We found that the top ten pathways that came up were almost all involved in inflammation or immune activation, and we found those differences only in tumor and adjacent normal prostate tissue. We didn’t see any pathways that were differentially expressed by statin use within the tumor tissue itself,” said Emma Allott, PhD, who presented the research at a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

An association between statin use and improved survival was first described in a 2006 study based on results from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study. Since then, “we’ve been generating molecular data on cancers that developed in statin users and nonusers,” said Dr. Allott of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Of the 5,792 prostate cancer diagnoses, 17% were advanced cases, defined as stage T3b or more, having spread to lymph nodes or metastasized, or lethal; 13% were lethal, 46% were positive for the ERG oncogene, and 14% were PTEN-null. “Statin use was associated with a lower risk of PTEN-null prostate cancer, so that seems to drive some of the reduced association with lethal disease,” said Dr. Allott.

 

 


There was no association between lethality and ERG-positive or ERG-negative status. Those who used statins for more than 5 years were less likely to have a PTEN-null tumor (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.90) but not more likely to have a PTEN-positive tumor (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46).

Compared with never users, long-term statin users also were less likely to have advanced prostate cancer (multivariate analysis, HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.85) as well as lethal prostate cancer (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78).

The researchers conducted a gene set enrichment analysis in statin users and found an enrichment of T-cell, B-cell, and PI3K signaling in tumor-adjacent normal prostate tissue, as well as other changes. “We think maybe there’s a microenvironment inflammation component to the mechanism through which statins are associated with lower risk of lethal prostate cancer,” said Dr. Allott.

The molecular data could identify patient subgroups that could benefit from statins. Dr. Allott said that is the goal, but it will take time. “That’s more obviously translatable to the clinic, but we don’t yet have enough data in this cohort to look at that.”

SOURCE: Allott E et al. AUA 2018, Abstract MP21-01.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Long-term use of statins may protect against lethal forms of prostate cancer by altering the inflammatory profile of the tumor microenvironment, according to the results of a new genetic analysis of prostate cancers in men in the Health Professionals Follow Up Study.

A previous analysis from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study published in 2015 showed no difference in the risk of lethal prostate cancer for those who began using statins after diagnosis of their tumors.

Jim Kling/MDedge News
Dr. Emma Allott
The current study examined 5,792 diagnoses of prostate cancer among 44,076 men; 13% of these cancers metastasized or led to death.

A genetic analysis of these lethal cases revealed that patients taking long-term statins had a lower incidence of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)–null cancers, which are associated with worse outcomes. Integrating molecular and epidemiologic data, PTEN and PI3K (phosphatidylinositol) signaling and inflammation and immune activation appear to be two potential mechanisms contributing to this association.

Genetic analysis of normal prostate tissue also showed unique traits among statin users. “We found that the top ten pathways that came up were almost all involved in inflammation or immune activation, and we found those differences only in tumor and adjacent normal prostate tissue. We didn’t see any pathways that were differentially expressed by statin use within the tumor tissue itself,” said Emma Allott, PhD, who presented the research at a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

An association between statin use and improved survival was first described in a 2006 study based on results from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study. Since then, “we’ve been generating molecular data on cancers that developed in statin users and nonusers,” said Dr. Allott of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Of the 5,792 prostate cancer diagnoses, 17% were advanced cases, defined as stage T3b or more, having spread to lymph nodes or metastasized, or lethal; 13% were lethal, 46% were positive for the ERG oncogene, and 14% were PTEN-null. “Statin use was associated with a lower risk of PTEN-null prostate cancer, so that seems to drive some of the reduced association with lethal disease,” said Dr. Allott.

 

 


There was no association between lethality and ERG-positive or ERG-negative status. Those who used statins for more than 5 years were less likely to have a PTEN-null tumor (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.90) but not more likely to have a PTEN-positive tumor (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46).

Compared with never users, long-term statin users also were less likely to have advanced prostate cancer (multivariate analysis, HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.85) as well as lethal prostate cancer (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78).

The researchers conducted a gene set enrichment analysis in statin users and found an enrichment of T-cell, B-cell, and PI3K signaling in tumor-adjacent normal prostate tissue, as well as other changes. “We think maybe there’s a microenvironment inflammation component to the mechanism through which statins are associated with lower risk of lethal prostate cancer,” said Dr. Allott.

The molecular data could identify patient subgroups that could benefit from statins. Dr. Allott said that is the goal, but it will take time. “That’s more obviously translatable to the clinic, but we don’t yet have enough data in this cohort to look at that.”

SOURCE: Allott E et al. AUA 2018, Abstract MP21-01.

 

Long-term use of statins may protect against lethal forms of prostate cancer by altering the inflammatory profile of the tumor microenvironment, according to the results of a new genetic analysis of prostate cancers in men in the Health Professionals Follow Up Study.

A previous analysis from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study published in 2015 showed no difference in the risk of lethal prostate cancer for those who began using statins after diagnosis of their tumors.

Jim Kling/MDedge News
Dr. Emma Allott
The current study examined 5,792 diagnoses of prostate cancer among 44,076 men; 13% of these cancers metastasized or led to death.

A genetic analysis of these lethal cases revealed that patients taking long-term statins had a lower incidence of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)–null cancers, which are associated with worse outcomes. Integrating molecular and epidemiologic data, PTEN and PI3K (phosphatidylinositol) signaling and inflammation and immune activation appear to be two potential mechanisms contributing to this association.

Genetic analysis of normal prostate tissue also showed unique traits among statin users. “We found that the top ten pathways that came up were almost all involved in inflammation or immune activation, and we found those differences only in tumor and adjacent normal prostate tissue. We didn’t see any pathways that were differentially expressed by statin use within the tumor tissue itself,” said Emma Allott, PhD, who presented the research at a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

An association between statin use and improved survival was first described in a 2006 study based on results from the Health Professionals Follow Up Study. Since then, “we’ve been generating molecular data on cancers that developed in statin users and nonusers,” said Dr. Allott of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Of the 5,792 prostate cancer diagnoses, 17% were advanced cases, defined as stage T3b or more, having spread to lymph nodes or metastasized, or lethal; 13% were lethal, 46% were positive for the ERG oncogene, and 14% were PTEN-null. “Statin use was associated with a lower risk of PTEN-null prostate cancer, so that seems to drive some of the reduced association with lethal disease,” said Dr. Allott.

 

 


There was no association between lethality and ERG-positive or ERG-negative status. Those who used statins for more than 5 years were less likely to have a PTEN-null tumor (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.90) but not more likely to have a PTEN-positive tumor (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46).

Compared with never users, long-term statin users also were less likely to have advanced prostate cancer (multivariate analysis, HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.85) as well as lethal prostate cancer (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78).

The researchers conducted a gene set enrichment analysis in statin users and found an enrichment of T-cell, B-cell, and PI3K signaling in tumor-adjacent normal prostate tissue, as well as other changes. “We think maybe there’s a microenvironment inflammation component to the mechanism through which statins are associated with lower risk of lethal prostate cancer,” said Dr. Allott.

The molecular data could identify patient subgroups that could benefit from statins. Dr. Allott said that is the goal, but it will take time. “That’s more obviously translatable to the clinic, but we don’t yet have enough data in this cohort to look at that.”

SOURCE: Allott E et al. AUA 2018, Abstract MP21-01.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM THE AUA ANNUAL MEETING

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Researchers hope that genetic analyses could eventually point to prostate cancer patients who might benefit from statin use.

Major finding: Long-term statin users had lower odds of having a pTEN-null tumor (hazard ratio, 0.42), which is associated with worse outcomes.

Study details: Retrospective analysis of 5,792 diagnoses of prostate cancer among 44,076 men.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Irish Cancer Society, the John Fitzpatrick Fellowship, and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Allott reported no relevant financial relationships.

Source: Allott E et al. AUA 2018, Abstract MP21-01.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Verma unveils Medicaid scorecard but refuses to judge efforts

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:20

 

The Trump administration on June 4 released a Medicaid “scorecard” intended to show how the nation’s largest health program is performing. But the nation’s top Medicaid official didn’t want to draw any conclusions.

“This is about bringing a level of transparency and accountability to the Medicaid program that we have never had before,” said Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Yet in a meeting with reporters, Ms. Verma refused to discuss the findings in any detail or comment on any individual states that performed poorly or exceptionally.

“I will let you look at the data and make your own conclusions,” she told journalists a few minutes before the report was posted online.

When reporters pressed Ms. Verma to comment on the document, she refused to give an assessment of the Medicaid program, the federal-state health program for low-income residents. She has run Medicaid for the past 15 months.

“The idea here is to give you a sense of where states are on different areas,” she said. “The idea is to be used for best practices,” and it’s “an opportunity for us to identify” and have discussions with states that aren’t performing well.

Medicaid covers about 75 million people, about half of them children.

 

 


The report looked at how well states provide a wide variety of health services to children and adults. It also reviewed how quickly the federal government was approving state waiver requests to change their programs.

But not all states provided data for each service because sharing information was voluntary.

For example, half the states did not show how well they control Medicaid enrollees’ blood pressure.

The National Association of Medicaid Directors panned the scorecard. It acknowledged the need for a system to measure performance but said its members have concerns about its accuracy and usefulness.
 

 


“There are significant methodological issues with the underlying data, including completeness, timeliness, and quality,” the association said in a statement. It noted that most of the data come from 2015.

As expected, the data showed great variation in how states provide care, including immunizing teenagers and getting dental care to children. A big reason is that state Medicaid benefits and payments to doctors vary dramatically, the Medicaid directors said, so that “it will not be possible to make apples-to-apples comparisons between states.”

In her first public speech, Ms. Verma promised last November to release a Medicaid scorecard. She said states won’t immediately face any consequences for poor performance – but that could change.

“The data … begins to offer taxpayers insights into how their dollars are being spent and the impact those dollars have on health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said on June 4.
 

 


Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University in Washington, who previously led a congressional advisory board on Medicaid, suggested that the information is still too incomplete to be of great value.

“It is amazing to me that in 2018 this is all we have when trying to understand how the nation’s largest insurer performs for its poorest and most vulnerable residents,” she said.
 

KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. 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.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Trump administration on June 4 released a Medicaid “scorecard” intended to show how the nation’s largest health program is performing. But the nation’s top Medicaid official didn’t want to draw any conclusions.

“This is about bringing a level of transparency and accountability to the Medicaid program that we have never had before,” said Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Yet in a meeting with reporters, Ms. Verma refused to discuss the findings in any detail or comment on any individual states that performed poorly or exceptionally.

“I will let you look at the data and make your own conclusions,” she told journalists a few minutes before the report was posted online.

When reporters pressed Ms. Verma to comment on the document, she refused to give an assessment of the Medicaid program, the federal-state health program for low-income residents. She has run Medicaid for the past 15 months.

“The idea here is to give you a sense of where states are on different areas,” she said. “The idea is to be used for best practices,” and it’s “an opportunity for us to identify” and have discussions with states that aren’t performing well.

Medicaid covers about 75 million people, about half of them children.

 

 


The report looked at how well states provide a wide variety of health services to children and adults. It also reviewed how quickly the federal government was approving state waiver requests to change their programs.

But not all states provided data for each service because sharing information was voluntary.

For example, half the states did not show how well they control Medicaid enrollees’ blood pressure.

The National Association of Medicaid Directors panned the scorecard. It acknowledged the need for a system to measure performance but said its members have concerns about its accuracy and usefulness.
 

 


“There are significant methodological issues with the underlying data, including completeness, timeliness, and quality,” the association said in a statement. It noted that most of the data come from 2015.

As expected, the data showed great variation in how states provide care, including immunizing teenagers and getting dental care to children. A big reason is that state Medicaid benefits and payments to doctors vary dramatically, the Medicaid directors said, so that “it will not be possible to make apples-to-apples comparisons between states.”

In her first public speech, Ms. Verma promised last November to release a Medicaid scorecard. She said states won’t immediately face any consequences for poor performance – but that could change.

“The data … begins to offer taxpayers insights into how their dollars are being spent and the impact those dollars have on health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said on June 4.
 

 


Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University in Washington, who previously led a congressional advisory board on Medicaid, suggested that the information is still too incomplete to be of great value.

“It is amazing to me that in 2018 this is all we have when trying to understand how the nation’s largest insurer performs for its poorest and most vulnerable residents,” she said.
 

KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. 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 Trump administration on June 4 released a Medicaid “scorecard” intended to show how the nation’s largest health program is performing. But the nation’s top Medicaid official didn’t want to draw any conclusions.

“This is about bringing a level of transparency and accountability to the Medicaid program that we have never had before,” said Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Yet in a meeting with reporters, Ms. Verma refused to discuss the findings in any detail or comment on any individual states that performed poorly or exceptionally.

“I will let you look at the data and make your own conclusions,” she told journalists a few minutes before the report was posted online.

When reporters pressed Ms. Verma to comment on the document, she refused to give an assessment of the Medicaid program, the federal-state health program for low-income residents. She has run Medicaid for the past 15 months.

“The idea here is to give you a sense of where states are on different areas,” she said. “The idea is to be used for best practices,” and it’s “an opportunity for us to identify” and have discussions with states that aren’t performing well.

Medicaid covers about 75 million people, about half of them children.

 

 


The report looked at how well states provide a wide variety of health services to children and adults. It also reviewed how quickly the federal government was approving state waiver requests to change their programs.

But not all states provided data for each service because sharing information was voluntary.

For example, half the states did not show how well they control Medicaid enrollees’ blood pressure.

The National Association of Medicaid Directors panned the scorecard. It acknowledged the need for a system to measure performance but said its members have concerns about its accuracy and usefulness.
 

 


“There are significant methodological issues with the underlying data, including completeness, timeliness, and quality,” the association said in a statement. It noted that most of the data come from 2015.

As expected, the data showed great variation in how states provide care, including immunizing teenagers and getting dental care to children. A big reason is that state Medicaid benefits and payments to doctors vary dramatically, the Medicaid directors said, so that “it will not be possible to make apples-to-apples comparisons between states.”

In her first public speech, Ms. Verma promised last November to release a Medicaid scorecard. She said states won’t immediately face any consequences for poor performance – but that could change.

“The data … begins to offer taxpayers insights into how their dollars are being spent and the impact those dollars have on health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said on June 4.
 

 


Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University in Washington, who previously led a congressional advisory board on Medicaid, suggested that the information is still too incomplete to be of great value.

“It is amazing to me that in 2018 this is all we have when trying to understand how the nation’s largest insurer performs for its poorest and most vulnerable residents,” she said.
 

KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. 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.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

FDA approves first biosimilar to pegfilgrastim

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 10:26

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb as the first biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) to decrease the chance of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and are at risk of febrile neutropenia.

The approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates pegfilgrastim-jmdb is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim, the FDA said in a statement.

The most common side effects of pegfilgrastim-jmdb are bone pain and pain in extremities. Serious side effects include spleen rupture, acute respiratory distress syndrome, serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, glomerulonephritis, leukocytosis, capillary leak syndrome, and tumor growth potential. Fatal sickle cell crises have occurred.

The FDA warns that “patients with a history of serious allergic reactions to human granulocyte colony–stimulating factors such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products should not take pegfilgrastim-jmdb.”

This approval is part of the FDA’s efforts to “help promote competition that can reduce drug costs and promote access,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement. “This summer, we’ll release a comprehensive new plan to advance new policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development. Biologics represent some of the most clinically important, but also costliest products that patients use to promote their health. We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products.”

Pegfilgrastim-jmdb will be marketed as Fulphila by Mylan GmbH.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb as the first biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) to decrease the chance of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and are at risk of febrile neutropenia.

The approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates pegfilgrastim-jmdb is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim, the FDA said in a statement.

The most common side effects of pegfilgrastim-jmdb are bone pain and pain in extremities. Serious side effects include spleen rupture, acute respiratory distress syndrome, serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, glomerulonephritis, leukocytosis, capillary leak syndrome, and tumor growth potential. Fatal sickle cell crises have occurred.

The FDA warns that “patients with a history of serious allergic reactions to human granulocyte colony–stimulating factors such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products should not take pegfilgrastim-jmdb.”

This approval is part of the FDA’s efforts to “help promote competition that can reduce drug costs and promote access,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement. “This summer, we’ll release a comprehensive new plan to advance new policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development. Biologics represent some of the most clinically important, but also costliest products that patients use to promote their health. We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products.”

Pegfilgrastim-jmdb will be marketed as Fulphila by Mylan GmbH.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb as the first biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) to decrease the chance of infection in patients with nonmyeloid cancer who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and are at risk of febrile neutropenia.

The approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrates pegfilgrastim-jmdb is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim, the FDA said in a statement.

The most common side effects of pegfilgrastim-jmdb are bone pain and pain in extremities. Serious side effects include spleen rupture, acute respiratory distress syndrome, serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, glomerulonephritis, leukocytosis, capillary leak syndrome, and tumor growth potential. Fatal sickle cell crises have occurred.

The FDA warns that “patients with a history of serious allergic reactions to human granulocyte colony–stimulating factors such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products should not take pegfilgrastim-jmdb.”

This approval is part of the FDA’s efforts to “help promote competition that can reduce drug costs and promote access,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement. “This summer, we’ll release a comprehensive new plan to advance new policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development. Biologics represent some of the most clinically important, but also costliest products that patients use to promote their health. We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products.”

Pegfilgrastim-jmdb will be marketed as Fulphila by Mylan GmbH.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

TAVR for low-risk patients shines at 6 years in NOTION

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/04/2018 - 11:44

 

– Follow-up data from a randomized trial of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis showed sustained superior hemodynamic valve performance and less structural valve deterioration in the transcatheter group through 6 years, Lars Sondergaard, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, the rate of bioprosthetic valve failure as formally defined in a recent European consensus statement (Eur Heart J. 2017 Dec 1;38[45]:3382-90) was similarly low in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) arms at about 7%, in the randomized study known as NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention), added Dr. Sondergaard, professor of cardiology at the University of Copenhagen, who was a coauthor of the consensus statement.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Lars Sondergaard
The absence of any concerning signal of limited TAVR valve durability after 6 years is encouraging news.

“As we look to expand TAVR to younger patients with longer life expectancy, durability, of course, becomes much more important,” the cardiologist observed.

NOTION was a pioneering prospective, multicenter, nonblinded, randomized trial of first-generation TAVR technology. The 280 participants, average age 79 years, were truly a low-surgical-risk population, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 3%.

NOTION is a small trial, but the results at 6 years of a planned 10-year follow-up augur well for TAVR success in the large, ongoing, definitive, randomized trials of TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients. That’s because NOTION participants were treated in 2009-2013, when the self-expanding TAVR CoreValve was implanted on the basis of aortic annulus measurements obtained via echocardiography, which is considerably less accurate than CT, the standard practice today. For this reason, it’s highly unlikely that the larger, ongoing trials, including PARTNER 3 and the Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients trial, will experience moderate paravalvular leak rates anything like the 20.9% rate seen in the TAVR group in NOTION, where the SAVR group’s rate was just 1.5%.

“I’m sure quite a few of the NOTION patients would have a larger TAVR valve prosthesis if they were treated today,” according to Dr. Sondergaard.

 

 



Valve function

The rate of moderate hemodynamic structural valve deterioration through 6 years of follow-up was 3.6% in the TAVR arm, compared with 23.7% in the SAVR group. The rate of nonstructural valve deterioration was 54.0% with TAVR and 57.8% with SAVR, and there were no cases of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation in either group.

The mean aortic valve gradient in the TAVR group went from 44.9 mm Hg at baseline to 12.2 mm Hg at 3 months and to 14.7 mm Hg at 6 years. In the SAVR group, the figures were 44.9 mm Hg, 8.3 mm Hg, and 9.9 mm Hg, respectively.

The effective orifice area in the TAVR group improved from 0.74 cm2 at baseline to 1.37 cm2 at 3 months and to 1.16 cm2 at 6 years. With SAVR, the effective orifice area was 0.74 cm2 at baseline, 1.66 cm2 at 3 months, and 1.53 cm2 at 6 years.

 

 



Clinical outcomes

Through 6 years of follow-up, there were no cases of thrombosis in either study arm, and the rate of endocarditis was just under 6% in each group through 6 years. All-cause mortality through 6 years was 42.5% in the TAVR group, not significantly different from the 37.7% rate in the SAVR arm.

The valve-related death rate was 5.0% in the TAVR arm and similar at 3.7% with SAVR. Reintervention occurred in 2.2% of TAVR patients and in 0.7% of SAVR patients. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was documented in 0.7% of TAVR patients and 3.0% of SAVR patients. The overall rate of bioprosthetic valve failure – a composite of these three endpoints – was 7.5% with TAVR and similar at 6.7% with SAVR.

Session cochair Alain G. Cribier, MD, a TAVR pioneer who is professor of medicine and director of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen (France), declared, “This is extremely encouraging.”

However, discussant Corrado Tamburino, MD, was more circumspect.

 

 


“If you look, there’s a trend for increased all-cause mortality in the TAVR versus SAVR group at 6 years. This could be related to the big difference in paravalvular leak. Do you think paravalvular leak could have a real impact on mortality?” asked Dr. Tamburino, professor of cardiology at the University of Catania, Italy.

Not in the NOTION study, where they looked for but didn’t find any such association, according to Dr. Sondergaard.

“If you look at the survival curves from the beginning out to 6 years, you’ll see that the lines cross each other several times, so this small difference right now could just be random. I don’t think we can say there’s a higher mortality rate with TAVR for the time being,” he added.

The NOTION trial was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Sondergaard reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis.
Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Follow-up data from a randomized trial of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis showed sustained superior hemodynamic valve performance and less structural valve deterioration in the transcatheter group through 6 years, Lars Sondergaard, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, the rate of bioprosthetic valve failure as formally defined in a recent European consensus statement (Eur Heart J. 2017 Dec 1;38[45]:3382-90) was similarly low in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) arms at about 7%, in the randomized study known as NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention), added Dr. Sondergaard, professor of cardiology at the University of Copenhagen, who was a coauthor of the consensus statement.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Lars Sondergaard
The absence of any concerning signal of limited TAVR valve durability after 6 years is encouraging news.

“As we look to expand TAVR to younger patients with longer life expectancy, durability, of course, becomes much more important,” the cardiologist observed.

NOTION was a pioneering prospective, multicenter, nonblinded, randomized trial of first-generation TAVR technology. The 280 participants, average age 79 years, were truly a low-surgical-risk population, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 3%.

NOTION is a small trial, but the results at 6 years of a planned 10-year follow-up augur well for TAVR success in the large, ongoing, definitive, randomized trials of TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients. That’s because NOTION participants were treated in 2009-2013, when the self-expanding TAVR CoreValve was implanted on the basis of aortic annulus measurements obtained via echocardiography, which is considerably less accurate than CT, the standard practice today. For this reason, it’s highly unlikely that the larger, ongoing trials, including PARTNER 3 and the Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients trial, will experience moderate paravalvular leak rates anything like the 20.9% rate seen in the TAVR group in NOTION, where the SAVR group’s rate was just 1.5%.

“I’m sure quite a few of the NOTION patients would have a larger TAVR valve prosthesis if they were treated today,” according to Dr. Sondergaard.

 

 



Valve function

The rate of moderate hemodynamic structural valve deterioration through 6 years of follow-up was 3.6% in the TAVR arm, compared with 23.7% in the SAVR group. The rate of nonstructural valve deterioration was 54.0% with TAVR and 57.8% with SAVR, and there were no cases of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation in either group.

The mean aortic valve gradient in the TAVR group went from 44.9 mm Hg at baseline to 12.2 mm Hg at 3 months and to 14.7 mm Hg at 6 years. In the SAVR group, the figures were 44.9 mm Hg, 8.3 mm Hg, and 9.9 mm Hg, respectively.

The effective orifice area in the TAVR group improved from 0.74 cm2 at baseline to 1.37 cm2 at 3 months and to 1.16 cm2 at 6 years. With SAVR, the effective orifice area was 0.74 cm2 at baseline, 1.66 cm2 at 3 months, and 1.53 cm2 at 6 years.

 

 



Clinical outcomes

Through 6 years of follow-up, there were no cases of thrombosis in either study arm, and the rate of endocarditis was just under 6% in each group through 6 years. All-cause mortality through 6 years was 42.5% in the TAVR group, not significantly different from the 37.7% rate in the SAVR arm.

The valve-related death rate was 5.0% in the TAVR arm and similar at 3.7% with SAVR. Reintervention occurred in 2.2% of TAVR patients and in 0.7% of SAVR patients. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was documented in 0.7% of TAVR patients and 3.0% of SAVR patients. The overall rate of bioprosthetic valve failure – a composite of these three endpoints – was 7.5% with TAVR and similar at 6.7% with SAVR.

Session cochair Alain G. Cribier, MD, a TAVR pioneer who is professor of medicine and director of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen (France), declared, “This is extremely encouraging.”

However, discussant Corrado Tamburino, MD, was more circumspect.

 

 


“If you look, there’s a trend for increased all-cause mortality in the TAVR versus SAVR group at 6 years. This could be related to the big difference in paravalvular leak. Do you think paravalvular leak could have a real impact on mortality?” asked Dr. Tamburino, professor of cardiology at the University of Catania, Italy.

Not in the NOTION study, where they looked for but didn’t find any such association, according to Dr. Sondergaard.

“If you look at the survival curves from the beginning out to 6 years, you’ll see that the lines cross each other several times, so this small difference right now could just be random. I don’t think we can say there’s a higher mortality rate with TAVR for the time being,” he added.

The NOTION trial was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Sondergaard reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis.

 

– Follow-up data from a randomized trial of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis showed sustained superior hemodynamic valve performance and less structural valve deterioration in the transcatheter group through 6 years, Lars Sondergaard, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, the rate of bioprosthetic valve failure as formally defined in a recent European consensus statement (Eur Heart J. 2017 Dec 1;38[45]:3382-90) was similarly low in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) arms at about 7%, in the randomized study known as NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention), added Dr. Sondergaard, professor of cardiology at the University of Copenhagen, who was a coauthor of the consensus statement.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Lars Sondergaard
The absence of any concerning signal of limited TAVR valve durability after 6 years is encouraging news.

“As we look to expand TAVR to younger patients with longer life expectancy, durability, of course, becomes much more important,” the cardiologist observed.

NOTION was a pioneering prospective, multicenter, nonblinded, randomized trial of first-generation TAVR technology. The 280 participants, average age 79 years, were truly a low-surgical-risk population, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 3%.

NOTION is a small trial, but the results at 6 years of a planned 10-year follow-up augur well for TAVR success in the large, ongoing, definitive, randomized trials of TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients. That’s because NOTION participants were treated in 2009-2013, when the self-expanding TAVR CoreValve was implanted on the basis of aortic annulus measurements obtained via echocardiography, which is considerably less accurate than CT, the standard practice today. For this reason, it’s highly unlikely that the larger, ongoing trials, including PARTNER 3 and the Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients trial, will experience moderate paravalvular leak rates anything like the 20.9% rate seen in the TAVR group in NOTION, where the SAVR group’s rate was just 1.5%.

“I’m sure quite a few of the NOTION patients would have a larger TAVR valve prosthesis if they were treated today,” according to Dr. Sondergaard.

 

 



Valve function

The rate of moderate hemodynamic structural valve deterioration through 6 years of follow-up was 3.6% in the TAVR arm, compared with 23.7% in the SAVR group. The rate of nonstructural valve deterioration was 54.0% with TAVR and 57.8% with SAVR, and there were no cases of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation in either group.

The mean aortic valve gradient in the TAVR group went from 44.9 mm Hg at baseline to 12.2 mm Hg at 3 months and to 14.7 mm Hg at 6 years. In the SAVR group, the figures were 44.9 mm Hg, 8.3 mm Hg, and 9.9 mm Hg, respectively.

The effective orifice area in the TAVR group improved from 0.74 cm2 at baseline to 1.37 cm2 at 3 months and to 1.16 cm2 at 6 years. With SAVR, the effective orifice area was 0.74 cm2 at baseline, 1.66 cm2 at 3 months, and 1.53 cm2 at 6 years.

 

 



Clinical outcomes

Through 6 years of follow-up, there were no cases of thrombosis in either study arm, and the rate of endocarditis was just under 6% in each group through 6 years. All-cause mortality through 6 years was 42.5% in the TAVR group, not significantly different from the 37.7% rate in the SAVR arm.

The valve-related death rate was 5.0% in the TAVR arm and similar at 3.7% with SAVR. Reintervention occurred in 2.2% of TAVR patients and in 0.7% of SAVR patients. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was documented in 0.7% of TAVR patients and 3.0% of SAVR patients. The overall rate of bioprosthetic valve failure – a composite of these three endpoints – was 7.5% with TAVR and similar at 6.7% with SAVR.

Session cochair Alain G. Cribier, MD, a TAVR pioneer who is professor of medicine and director of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen (France), declared, “This is extremely encouraging.”

However, discussant Corrado Tamburino, MD, was more circumspect.

 

 


“If you look, there’s a trend for increased all-cause mortality in the TAVR versus SAVR group at 6 years. This could be related to the big difference in paravalvular leak. Do you think paravalvular leak could have a real impact on mortality?” asked Dr. Tamburino, professor of cardiology at the University of Catania, Italy.

Not in the NOTION study, where they looked for but didn’t find any such association, according to Dr. Sondergaard.

“If you look at the survival curves from the beginning out to 6 years, you’ll see that the lines cross each other several times, so this small difference right now could just be random. I don’t think we can say there’s a higher mortality rate with TAVR for the time being,” he added.

The NOTION trial was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Sondergaard reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis.
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM EUROPCR 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: TAVR provided superior hemodynamic valve performance and less structural valve deterioration than SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients through 6 years of follow-up.

Major finding: The rate of moderate hemodynamic structural valve deterioration through 6 years was 3.6% with TAVR and 23.7% with SAVR.

Study details: An analysis of 6-year follow-up data from NOTION, a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial in 280 low-surgical-risk patients.

Disclosures: NOTION was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. The presenter reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to several medical device companies.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

AMA: Opioid prescriptions down since 2013

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:36

 

Opioid prescriptions dropped by 22% over the last 5 years, with decreases seen in all 50 states, according to a new report from the American Medical Association’s opioid task force.

“The largest decrease in opioid prescriptions in 25 years reflects the fact that physicians and other health care professionals are increasingly judicious when prescribing opioids,” Patrice A. Harris, MD, chair of the task force, said in the report.

Providers dispensed almost 56 million fewer opioid prescriptions in 2017 than they did in 2013: The number of prescriptions fell from nearly 252 million in 2013 down to 196 million in 2017, the task force said.

Other signs of progress against the opioid epidemic include the increasing number of health care professionals registered for prescription drug monitoring programs: It has more than tripled, from 472,000 in 2014 to 1.55 million in 2017. Furthermore, the number of naloxone prescriptions in 2017 had more than doubled, from about 3,500 per week to 8,000, the task force reported.

“Unfortunately, deaths related to heroin and illicit fentanyl, and to prescription opioids, continue to rise. These statistics prove that decreasing prescriptions alone will not end the epidemic. We need well-designed initiatives that bring together public and private insurers, policymakers, public health infrastructure, and communities with the shared goal to improve access and coverage for comprehensive pain management and treatment for substance use disorders,” Dr. Harris said.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Opioid prescriptions dropped by 22% over the last 5 years, with decreases seen in all 50 states, according to a new report from the American Medical Association’s opioid task force.

“The largest decrease in opioid prescriptions in 25 years reflects the fact that physicians and other health care professionals are increasingly judicious when prescribing opioids,” Patrice A. Harris, MD, chair of the task force, said in the report.

Providers dispensed almost 56 million fewer opioid prescriptions in 2017 than they did in 2013: The number of prescriptions fell from nearly 252 million in 2013 down to 196 million in 2017, the task force said.

Other signs of progress against the opioid epidemic include the increasing number of health care professionals registered for prescription drug monitoring programs: It has more than tripled, from 472,000 in 2014 to 1.55 million in 2017. Furthermore, the number of naloxone prescriptions in 2017 had more than doubled, from about 3,500 per week to 8,000, the task force reported.

“Unfortunately, deaths related to heroin and illicit fentanyl, and to prescription opioids, continue to rise. These statistics prove that decreasing prescriptions alone will not end the epidemic. We need well-designed initiatives that bring together public and private insurers, policymakers, public health infrastructure, and communities with the shared goal to improve access and coverage for comprehensive pain management and treatment for substance use disorders,” Dr. Harris said.

 

Opioid prescriptions dropped by 22% over the last 5 years, with decreases seen in all 50 states, according to a new report from the American Medical Association’s opioid task force.

“The largest decrease in opioid prescriptions in 25 years reflects the fact that physicians and other health care professionals are increasingly judicious when prescribing opioids,” Patrice A. Harris, MD, chair of the task force, said in the report.

Providers dispensed almost 56 million fewer opioid prescriptions in 2017 than they did in 2013: The number of prescriptions fell from nearly 252 million in 2013 down to 196 million in 2017, the task force said.

Other signs of progress against the opioid epidemic include the increasing number of health care professionals registered for prescription drug monitoring programs: It has more than tripled, from 472,000 in 2014 to 1.55 million in 2017. Furthermore, the number of naloxone prescriptions in 2017 had more than doubled, from about 3,500 per week to 8,000, the task force reported.

“Unfortunately, deaths related to heroin and illicit fentanyl, and to prescription opioids, continue to rise. These statistics prove that decreasing prescriptions alone will not end the epidemic. We need well-designed initiatives that bring together public and private insurers, policymakers, public health infrastructure, and communities with the shared goal to improve access and coverage for comprehensive pain management and treatment for substance use disorders,” Dr. Harris said.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Checkpoint inhibitor shows promise in advanced squamous-cell carcinoma

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 10:25

An immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets the PD-1 receptor has shown “robust” efficacy among patients with advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, according to researchers.

A combined phase 1/phase 2 study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented simultaneously at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at the effect of monoclonal antibody cemiplimab in an expansion cohort of 26 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma who were not eligible for surgery. The phase 2 component involved 59 patients with metastatic disease.

Patients were treated with intravenous cemiplimab every 2 weeks for 48 weeks in the phase 1 study, and up to 96 weeks – or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression – in the phase 2 study.

In the phase 1 study, researchers saw a response rate of 50% and a 65% rate of durable disease control, after a median follow-up of 11 months (1.1-17). The median time to response was 2.3 months, and more than half the patients (54%) who showed a response maintained that response past 6 months.

In the phase 2 study in patients with metastatic disease, 47% responded to the treatment – 24 patients showed a partial response and 4 showed a complete response. Of those who responded, 61% showed durable disease control after a median follow-up of 7.9 months.

The median time to response in this group of patients was 1.9 months, and 57% of those who did respond still showed a response at 6 months. However neither median progression-free survival nor median overall survival had been reached at the point of data cut-off.

The treatment showed similar effects in patients with regional and distant metastatic disease.

Advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was thought to be an ideal target for immunotherapy because the high mutation burden in the tumor meant it would be sensitive to effector T cell attack, wrote Michael R. Migden, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his coauthors.

 

 


“In addition, the dramatically increased risk of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma among people with immunosuppression pointed to an important role for immune surveillance with this cancer,” the authors wrote.

In the phase 2 study, 29% of patients experienced a serious adverse event – including two cases of pneumonitis – and three patients (5%) discontinued treatment. There were three deaths due to adverse events: One patient died from pneumonia complications, one died in his sleep, and one patient died following hypercalcemia and deep vein thrombosis.

Aside from these, most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Around one-quarter of patients experienced diarrhea (27%) or fatigue (24%), while the other most common adverse events were nausea (17%), constipation (15%) and rash (15%). The authors noted that these adverse events were similar to those seen in other PD-1 inhibitors.

“Our results are consistent with an emerging theme regarding the high efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for the treatment of hypermutated cancers, since the mutation burden of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma is similar to that reported for advanced solid tumors with microsatellite instability,” the authors wrote.
 

 

Cemiplimab is now being tested in a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

The study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. Eight authors declared funding from Regeneron to conduct the trial. Ten authors were employees of Regeneron. Fifteen authors also declared funding and payments from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Four had nothing to disclose.

SOURCE: Migden M et al. NEJM, 2018; June 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805131.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

An immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets the PD-1 receptor has shown “robust” efficacy among patients with advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, according to researchers.

A combined phase 1/phase 2 study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented simultaneously at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at the effect of monoclonal antibody cemiplimab in an expansion cohort of 26 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma who were not eligible for surgery. The phase 2 component involved 59 patients with metastatic disease.

Patients were treated with intravenous cemiplimab every 2 weeks for 48 weeks in the phase 1 study, and up to 96 weeks – or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression – in the phase 2 study.

In the phase 1 study, researchers saw a response rate of 50% and a 65% rate of durable disease control, after a median follow-up of 11 months (1.1-17). The median time to response was 2.3 months, and more than half the patients (54%) who showed a response maintained that response past 6 months.

In the phase 2 study in patients with metastatic disease, 47% responded to the treatment – 24 patients showed a partial response and 4 showed a complete response. Of those who responded, 61% showed durable disease control after a median follow-up of 7.9 months.

The median time to response in this group of patients was 1.9 months, and 57% of those who did respond still showed a response at 6 months. However neither median progression-free survival nor median overall survival had been reached at the point of data cut-off.

The treatment showed similar effects in patients with regional and distant metastatic disease.

Advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was thought to be an ideal target for immunotherapy because the high mutation burden in the tumor meant it would be sensitive to effector T cell attack, wrote Michael R. Migden, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his coauthors.

 

 


“In addition, the dramatically increased risk of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma among people with immunosuppression pointed to an important role for immune surveillance with this cancer,” the authors wrote.

In the phase 2 study, 29% of patients experienced a serious adverse event – including two cases of pneumonitis – and three patients (5%) discontinued treatment. There were three deaths due to adverse events: One patient died from pneumonia complications, one died in his sleep, and one patient died following hypercalcemia and deep vein thrombosis.

Aside from these, most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Around one-quarter of patients experienced diarrhea (27%) or fatigue (24%), while the other most common adverse events were nausea (17%), constipation (15%) and rash (15%). The authors noted that these adverse events were similar to those seen in other PD-1 inhibitors.

“Our results are consistent with an emerging theme regarding the high efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for the treatment of hypermutated cancers, since the mutation burden of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma is similar to that reported for advanced solid tumors with microsatellite instability,” the authors wrote.
 

 

Cemiplimab is now being tested in a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

The study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. Eight authors declared funding from Regeneron to conduct the trial. Ten authors were employees of Regeneron. Fifteen authors also declared funding and payments from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Four had nothing to disclose.

SOURCE: Migden M et al. NEJM, 2018; June 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805131.

An immune checkpoint inhibitor that targets the PD-1 receptor has shown “robust” efficacy among patients with advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, according to researchers.

A combined phase 1/phase 2 study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented simultaneously at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at the effect of monoclonal antibody cemiplimab in an expansion cohort of 26 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma who were not eligible for surgery. The phase 2 component involved 59 patients with metastatic disease.

Patients were treated with intravenous cemiplimab every 2 weeks for 48 weeks in the phase 1 study, and up to 96 weeks – or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression – in the phase 2 study.

In the phase 1 study, researchers saw a response rate of 50% and a 65% rate of durable disease control, after a median follow-up of 11 months (1.1-17). The median time to response was 2.3 months, and more than half the patients (54%) who showed a response maintained that response past 6 months.

In the phase 2 study in patients with metastatic disease, 47% responded to the treatment – 24 patients showed a partial response and 4 showed a complete response. Of those who responded, 61% showed durable disease control after a median follow-up of 7.9 months.

The median time to response in this group of patients was 1.9 months, and 57% of those who did respond still showed a response at 6 months. However neither median progression-free survival nor median overall survival had been reached at the point of data cut-off.

The treatment showed similar effects in patients with regional and distant metastatic disease.

Advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was thought to be an ideal target for immunotherapy because the high mutation burden in the tumor meant it would be sensitive to effector T cell attack, wrote Michael R. Migden, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and his coauthors.

 

 


“In addition, the dramatically increased risk of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma among people with immunosuppression pointed to an important role for immune surveillance with this cancer,” the authors wrote.

In the phase 2 study, 29% of patients experienced a serious adverse event – including two cases of pneumonitis – and three patients (5%) discontinued treatment. There were three deaths due to adverse events: One patient died from pneumonia complications, one died in his sleep, and one patient died following hypercalcemia and deep vein thrombosis.

Aside from these, most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Around one-quarter of patients experienced diarrhea (27%) or fatigue (24%), while the other most common adverse events were nausea (17%), constipation (15%) and rash (15%). The authors noted that these adverse events were similar to those seen in other PD-1 inhibitors.

“Our results are consistent with an emerging theme regarding the high efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for the treatment of hypermutated cancers, since the mutation burden of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma is similar to that reported for advanced solid tumors with microsatellite instability,” the authors wrote.
 

 

Cemiplimab is now being tested in a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

The study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. Eight authors declared funding from Regeneron to conduct the trial. Ten authors were employees of Regeneron. Fifteen authors also declared funding and payments from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Four had nothing to disclose.

SOURCE: Migden M et al. NEJM, 2018; June 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805131.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: PD-1 inhibitor cemiplimab shows significant response in advanced squamous-cell carcinoma.

Major finding: Around half of patients with advanced squamous-cell carcinoma responded to checkpoint inhibitor cemiplimab.

Study details: Phase 1 expanded cohort study of 26 patients with advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and phase 2 study of 59 patients with metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. Eight authors declared funding from Regeneron to conduct the trial. Ten authors were employees of Regeneron. Fifteen authors declared funding and payments from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Four had nothing to disclose.

Source: Migden M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 June 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805131.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

FDA alerts clinicians to gastric balloon deaths

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:42

 

A total of 12 deaths over the past 2 years have been linked to the use of liquid-filled intragastric balloon devices for the treatment of obesity, according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration issued on June 4.

Seven of these deaths occurred in patients in the United States; four involved the ORBERA Intragastric Balloon System, and three involved the ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System.

Four of the deaths reported worldwide since 2016 occurred following gastric perforation within a month of surgery (three with the ORBERA system and one with the ReShape system), according to the FDA. A fifth death involving the Orbera system remains under investigation by the manufacturer.

The FDA has approved updated labeling for the ORBERA and ReShape balloon systems in the United States. The labels contain more information about possible death associated with the use of these devices in the United States. The manufacturers’ sites, Apollo Endosurgery and ReShape Lifesciences, provide more details about the new labeling.

In a letter to health care providers, the FDA advised clinicians to educate bariatric surgery patients about the symptoms of complications from balloon procedures, including not only gastric perforation but also esophageal perforation, balloon deflation, gastrointestinal obstruction, and ulceration. In addition, the FDA reminded clinicians to monitor patients during the entire course of treatment for additional complications, including acute pancreatitis and spontaneous hyperinflation.

Any adverse events involving intragastric balloon systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

A total of 12 deaths over the past 2 years have been linked to the use of liquid-filled intragastric balloon devices for the treatment of obesity, according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration issued on June 4.

Seven of these deaths occurred in patients in the United States; four involved the ORBERA Intragastric Balloon System, and three involved the ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System.

Four of the deaths reported worldwide since 2016 occurred following gastric perforation within a month of surgery (three with the ORBERA system and one with the ReShape system), according to the FDA. A fifth death involving the Orbera system remains under investigation by the manufacturer.

The FDA has approved updated labeling for the ORBERA and ReShape balloon systems in the United States. The labels contain more information about possible death associated with the use of these devices in the United States. The manufacturers’ sites, Apollo Endosurgery and ReShape Lifesciences, provide more details about the new labeling.

In a letter to health care providers, the FDA advised clinicians to educate bariatric surgery patients about the symptoms of complications from balloon procedures, including not only gastric perforation but also esophageal perforation, balloon deflation, gastrointestinal obstruction, and ulceration. In addition, the FDA reminded clinicians to monitor patients during the entire course of treatment for additional complications, including acute pancreatitis and spontaneous hyperinflation.

Any adverse events involving intragastric balloon systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

 

A total of 12 deaths over the past 2 years have been linked to the use of liquid-filled intragastric balloon devices for the treatment of obesity, according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration issued on June 4.

Seven of these deaths occurred in patients in the United States; four involved the ORBERA Intragastric Balloon System, and three involved the ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System.

Four of the deaths reported worldwide since 2016 occurred following gastric perforation within a month of surgery (three with the ORBERA system and one with the ReShape system), according to the FDA. A fifth death involving the Orbera system remains under investigation by the manufacturer.

The FDA has approved updated labeling for the ORBERA and ReShape balloon systems in the United States. The labels contain more information about possible death associated with the use of these devices in the United States. The manufacturers’ sites, Apollo Endosurgery and ReShape Lifesciences, provide more details about the new labeling.

In a letter to health care providers, the FDA advised clinicians to educate bariatric surgery patients about the symptoms of complications from balloon procedures, including not only gastric perforation but also esophageal perforation, balloon deflation, gastrointestinal obstruction, and ulceration. In addition, the FDA reminded clinicians to monitor patients during the entire course of treatment for additional complications, including acute pancreatitis and spontaneous hyperinflation.

Any adverse events involving intragastric balloon systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

MRD-negative status signals better outcomes in CAR T–treated ALL

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 10:26

 

– Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete remission was strongly associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) who received CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, results of a retrospective study showed.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) appeared to improve both disease-free and overall survival in those patients who had achieved MRD-negative complete remission, according to results of the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based upon our interaction testing, the potential benefit [of transplant] appears to exist in both good-risk and bad-risk patients as identified through multivariate modeling,” said study investigator Kevin Anthony Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

In a comment on the results, Sarah Cooley, MD, noted that the benefits of allogeneic transplant were apparent regardless of whether the patients met criteria for the good-risk subgroup, which was defined by levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and platelets along with exposure to fludarabine as part of the conditioning regimen.

“I think this suggests that the goal at this point is to get patients to an MRD-negative state and to potentially curative transplant,” said Dr. Cooley, director of investigator-initiated research at Masonic Medical Center at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Hay and his colleagues included 53 adults with relapsed or refractory ALL who had bone marrow or extramedullary disease at baseline and had received CD19 CAR T cells at or under the maximum tolerated dose at least 1 year prior to this analysis. Of that group, 45 (85%) achieved MRD-negative complete remission.

Those patients who did achieve MRD-negative complete remission had an improved median disease-free survival at 7.6 months versus 0.8 months (P less than .0001) and improved overall survival at 20.0 months versus 5.0 months (P = 0.014).

 

 


Most of the MRD-negative patients who relapsed did so within the first 6 months, an observation that led investigators to consider whether factors exist that could predict better outcomes.

In a multivariate analysis, they found three variables associated with disease free survival: higher LDH prior to lymphodepletion (hazard ratio, 1.39), along with higher platelet count prior to lymphodepletion and incorporation of fludarabine into the regimen, with hazard ratios of 0.65 and 0.34, respectively.

Using those three characteristics, investigators grouped patients as “good risk” if they had normal LDH, platelet count at or above 100 prior to lymphodepletion that included fludarabine. The 24-month disease-free survival for good-risk patients was 78%, and overall survival was 86%.

The role of allogeneic HSCT after ALL patients achieved MRD-negative complete remission with CAR T-cell therapy was one of the “major questions in the field,” Dr. Hay said.
 

 


In this analysis, Dr. Hay and colleagues found that patients who underwent transplant in MRD-negative complete remission had a 24-month disease free survival and overall survival of 61% and 72%, respectively, both of which were significantly higher than in patients with MRD-negative complete remission who had no transplant.

The disease-free survival benefit was not specific to the good-risk group, according to Dr. Hay, who said an interaction test demonstrated no significant interaction between risk group and allogeneic HSCT after CAR T-cell infusion (P = 0.53).

“This is a very important finding that should be further [studied] in an appropriately designed clinical trial,” Dr. Hay said during an oral presentation of the study results.

Dr. Hay and several coauthors reported financial disclosures related to Juno Therapeutics. Other disclosures reported by study coauthors included Cell Medica, Celgene, Eureka Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Hay KA. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7005.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete remission was strongly associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) who received CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, results of a retrospective study showed.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) appeared to improve both disease-free and overall survival in those patients who had achieved MRD-negative complete remission, according to results of the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based upon our interaction testing, the potential benefit [of transplant] appears to exist in both good-risk and bad-risk patients as identified through multivariate modeling,” said study investigator Kevin Anthony Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

In a comment on the results, Sarah Cooley, MD, noted that the benefits of allogeneic transplant were apparent regardless of whether the patients met criteria for the good-risk subgroup, which was defined by levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and platelets along with exposure to fludarabine as part of the conditioning regimen.

“I think this suggests that the goal at this point is to get patients to an MRD-negative state and to potentially curative transplant,” said Dr. Cooley, director of investigator-initiated research at Masonic Medical Center at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Hay and his colleagues included 53 adults with relapsed or refractory ALL who had bone marrow or extramedullary disease at baseline and had received CD19 CAR T cells at or under the maximum tolerated dose at least 1 year prior to this analysis. Of that group, 45 (85%) achieved MRD-negative complete remission.

Those patients who did achieve MRD-negative complete remission had an improved median disease-free survival at 7.6 months versus 0.8 months (P less than .0001) and improved overall survival at 20.0 months versus 5.0 months (P = 0.014).

 

 


Most of the MRD-negative patients who relapsed did so within the first 6 months, an observation that led investigators to consider whether factors exist that could predict better outcomes.

In a multivariate analysis, they found three variables associated with disease free survival: higher LDH prior to lymphodepletion (hazard ratio, 1.39), along with higher platelet count prior to lymphodepletion and incorporation of fludarabine into the regimen, with hazard ratios of 0.65 and 0.34, respectively.

Using those three characteristics, investigators grouped patients as “good risk” if they had normal LDH, platelet count at or above 100 prior to lymphodepletion that included fludarabine. The 24-month disease-free survival for good-risk patients was 78%, and overall survival was 86%.

The role of allogeneic HSCT after ALL patients achieved MRD-negative complete remission with CAR T-cell therapy was one of the “major questions in the field,” Dr. Hay said.
 

 


In this analysis, Dr. Hay and colleagues found that patients who underwent transplant in MRD-negative complete remission had a 24-month disease free survival and overall survival of 61% and 72%, respectively, both of which were significantly higher than in patients with MRD-negative complete remission who had no transplant.

The disease-free survival benefit was not specific to the good-risk group, according to Dr. Hay, who said an interaction test demonstrated no significant interaction between risk group and allogeneic HSCT after CAR T-cell infusion (P = 0.53).

“This is a very important finding that should be further [studied] in an appropriately designed clinical trial,” Dr. Hay said during an oral presentation of the study results.

Dr. Hay and several coauthors reported financial disclosures related to Juno Therapeutics. Other disclosures reported by study coauthors included Cell Medica, Celgene, Eureka Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Hay KA. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7005.

 

– Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete remission was strongly associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) who received CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, results of a retrospective study showed.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) appeared to improve both disease-free and overall survival in those patients who had achieved MRD-negative complete remission, according to results of the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based upon our interaction testing, the potential benefit [of transplant] appears to exist in both good-risk and bad-risk patients as identified through multivariate modeling,” said study investigator Kevin Anthony Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

In a comment on the results, Sarah Cooley, MD, noted that the benefits of allogeneic transplant were apparent regardless of whether the patients met criteria for the good-risk subgroup, which was defined by levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and platelets along with exposure to fludarabine as part of the conditioning regimen.

“I think this suggests that the goal at this point is to get patients to an MRD-negative state and to potentially curative transplant,” said Dr. Cooley, director of investigator-initiated research at Masonic Medical Center at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Hay and his colleagues included 53 adults with relapsed or refractory ALL who had bone marrow or extramedullary disease at baseline and had received CD19 CAR T cells at or under the maximum tolerated dose at least 1 year prior to this analysis. Of that group, 45 (85%) achieved MRD-negative complete remission.

Those patients who did achieve MRD-negative complete remission had an improved median disease-free survival at 7.6 months versus 0.8 months (P less than .0001) and improved overall survival at 20.0 months versus 5.0 months (P = 0.014).

 

 


Most of the MRD-negative patients who relapsed did so within the first 6 months, an observation that led investigators to consider whether factors exist that could predict better outcomes.

In a multivariate analysis, they found three variables associated with disease free survival: higher LDH prior to lymphodepletion (hazard ratio, 1.39), along with higher platelet count prior to lymphodepletion and incorporation of fludarabine into the regimen, with hazard ratios of 0.65 and 0.34, respectively.

Using those three characteristics, investigators grouped patients as “good risk” if they had normal LDH, platelet count at or above 100 prior to lymphodepletion that included fludarabine. The 24-month disease-free survival for good-risk patients was 78%, and overall survival was 86%.

The role of allogeneic HSCT after ALL patients achieved MRD-negative complete remission with CAR T-cell therapy was one of the “major questions in the field,” Dr. Hay said.
 

 


In this analysis, Dr. Hay and colleagues found that patients who underwent transplant in MRD-negative complete remission had a 24-month disease free survival and overall survival of 61% and 72%, respectively, both of which were significantly higher than in patients with MRD-negative complete remission who had no transplant.

The disease-free survival benefit was not specific to the good-risk group, according to Dr. Hay, who said an interaction test demonstrated no significant interaction between risk group and allogeneic HSCT after CAR T-cell infusion (P = 0.53).

“This is a very important finding that should be further [studied] in an appropriately designed clinical trial,” Dr. Hay said during an oral presentation of the study results.

Dr. Hay and several coauthors reported financial disclosures related to Juno Therapeutics. Other disclosures reported by study coauthors included Cell Medica, Celgene, Eureka Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Hay KA. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7005.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative complete remission was strongly associated with improved survival outcomes.

Major finding: Patients who achieved MRD-negative complete remission had an improved median disease-free survival at 7.6 months versus 0.8 months (P less than .0001)

Study details: A retrospective analysis including 53 patients with ALL who had bone marrow or extramedullary disease at baseline and had received CD19 CAR T cells at or under the maximum tolerated dose at least 1 year prior to this analysis.

Disclosures: Researchers reported financial ties to Juno Therapeutics, Cell Medica, Celgene, Eureka Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and others.

Source: Hay KA. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7005.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Dr. William J. Gradishar shares breast cancer take-aways from ASCO 2018

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:45

– William J. Gradishar, MD, discussed the clinical impact of breast cancer research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said TAILORx was a “big win” in that it has no doubt diminished the number of women with early-stage breast cancer who will require chemotherapy. However, although the trial has provided some clarity, it also has left some questions open, particularly for patients under 50 years of age, he said.

Dr. Gradishar also discussed the results of combination trials of targeted therapy with either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In discussing SANDPIPER, which evaluated whether a phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor could enhance the effect of anti-hormonal therapy, he said that although it was a positive trial, “from a clinician’s standpoint, it’s probably not sufficient in my mind to get really excited about.”

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– William J. Gradishar, MD, discussed the clinical impact of breast cancer research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said TAILORx was a “big win” in that it has no doubt diminished the number of women with early-stage breast cancer who will require chemotherapy. However, although the trial has provided some clarity, it also has left some questions open, particularly for patients under 50 years of age, he said.

Dr. Gradishar also discussed the results of combination trials of targeted therapy with either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In discussing SANDPIPER, which evaluated whether a phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor could enhance the effect of anti-hormonal therapy, he said that although it was a positive trial, “from a clinician’s standpoint, it’s probably not sufficient in my mind to get really excited about.”

– William J. Gradishar, MD, discussed the clinical impact of breast cancer research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a video interview, Dr. Gradishar, the Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said TAILORx was a “big win” in that it has no doubt diminished the number of women with early-stage breast cancer who will require chemotherapy. However, although the trial has provided some clarity, it also has left some questions open, particularly for patients under 50 years of age, he said.

Dr. Gradishar also discussed the results of combination trials of targeted therapy with either endocrine therapy or chemotherapy. In discussing SANDPIPER, which evaluated whether a phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor could enhance the effect of anti-hormonal therapy, he said that although it was a positive trial, “from a clinician’s standpoint, it’s probably not sufficient in my mind to get really excited about.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article