Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the intensive care unit (ICU) population.

Design. Pragmatic, un-blinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover clinical trial (the SMART study).

Setting and participants. The study evaluated critically ill adults > 18 years of age, admitted and readmitted into 5 ICUs, both medical and surgical, from June 2015 to April 2017. 15,802 patients were enrolled, powered to detect a 1.9% percentage point difference in primary outcome. ICUs were randomized to use either balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s [LR] or Plasma-Lyte A, depending on the provider’s preference) or normal saline during alternate calendar months. Relative contraindications to use of balanced crystalloids included traumatic brain injury and hyperkalemia. The admitting emergency rooms and operating rooms coordinated intravenous fluid (IVF) choice with their respective ICUs. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. In addition to primary and secondary outcome analyses, subgroup analyses based on factors including total IVF volume to day 30, vasopressor use, predicted in-hospital mortality, sepsis or traumatic brain injury diagnoses, ICU type, source of admission, and kidney function at baseline were also done. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses taking into account the total volume of crystalloid, crossover and excluding readmissions were performed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that met at least 1 of the 3 criteria for a Major Adverse Kidney Event at day 30 (MAKE30) or discharge, whichever occurred earlier. MAKE30 is a composite measure consisting of death, persistent renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 200% baseline), or new renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patients previously on RRT were included for mortality analysis alone. In addition, secondary clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality (prior to ICU discharge, at day 30 and day 60), ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, ICU-free days, days alive and RRT-free days in the first 28 days were assessed. Secondary renal outcomes such as persistent renal dysfunction, acute kidney injury (AKI) ≥ stage 2 (per Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Criteria {KDIGO}) criteria, new RRT, highest creatinine during hospitalization, creatinine at discharge and highest change in creatinine during hospitalization were also evaluated.

Results. 7942 patients were randomized to the balanced crystalloid group and 7860 to the saline group. Median age for both groups was 58 years and 57.6% patients were male. In terms of patient acuity, approximately 34% patients were on mechanical ventilation, 26% were on vasopressors, and around 14% carried a diagnosis of sepsis. At time of presentation, 17% had chronic kidney disease (CKD) ≥ stage 3 and approximately 5% were on RRT. Around 8% came in with AKI ≥ stage 2. Baseline creatinine in the both groups was 0.89 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.74–1.1). Median volumes of balanced crystalloid and saline administered was 1L (IQR 0–3.2L) and 1.02L (IQR 0–3.5L) respectively. Less than 5% in both groups received unassigned fluids. Predicted risk of in-hospital death for both groups was approximately 9%.

Significantly higher number of patients had plasma chloride ≥ 110 mmol/L and bicarbonate ≤ 20 mmol/L in the saline group (P < 0.001). In terms of primary outcome, MAKE30 rates in the balanced crystalloid vs saline groups were 14.3 vs 15.4 (marginal odds ratio {OR} 0.91, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.84–0.99, P = 0.04) with similar results in the pre-specified sensitivity analyses. This difference was more prominent with larger volumes of infused fluids. All 3 components of composite primary outcome were improved in the crystalloid group, although none of the 3 individually achieved statistical significance.

Overall, mortality before discharge and within 30 days of admission in the balanced crystalloid group was 10.3% compared to 11.1% in the saline group (OR 0.9, CI 0.8–1.01, P = 0.06). In-hospital death before ICU discharge and at 60 days also mirrored this trend, although they did not achieve statistical significance either. Of note, in septic patients, 30-day mortality rates were 25.2 vs 29.4 in the balanced crystalloid and saline groups respectively (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, P = 0.02).

With regard to renal outcomes in the balanced crystalloid vs normal saline groups, results were as follows: new RRT {2.5 vs 2.9%, P = 0.08}, new AKI development 10.7% vs 11.5% (OR 0.9, P = 0.09). In patients with a history of previous RRT or presenting with an AKI, crystalloids appeared to provide better MAKE30 outcomes, although not achieving statistical significance.

Conclusion. In the critically ill population, balanced crystalloids provide a beneficial effect over normal saline on the composite outcome of persistent renal dysfunction, new RRT and mortality at day 30.

Commentary

Unbalanced crystalloids, especially normal saline, are the most commonly used IVF for resuscitation in the critically ill. Given the data suggesting risk of kidney injury, acidosis, and effect on mortality with the use of normal saline, this study aimed to evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the ICU population.

Interest in the consequences of hyperchloremia and metabolic acidosis from supra-physiologic chloride concentrations in normal saline first stemmed from data in preclinical models, which demonstrated that chloride-induced renal inflammation adversely impacted renal function and mortality [1,2]. While in theory “balanced” solutions carry dual benefits of both an electrolyte composition that closely mirrors plasma and the presence of buffers which improve acid-base milieu, the exact repercussions on patient-centered outcomes with use of one over the other remain unknown.

An exploratory randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating biochemistry up to day 4 in normal saline vs Plasma-Lyte groups in 70 critically ill adults showed significantly higher hyperchloremia with normal saline but no difference in AKI rates between the two groups [3]. A pilot study evaluating “chloride-restrictive vs chloride liberal” strategies in 760 ICU patients involved use of Hartmann’s solution and Plasma-Lyte in place of saline for a 6-month period except in case of specific contraindications such as traumatic brain injury.  Results indicated that incidence of AKI and use of RRT significantly reduced by limiting chloride. No changes in mortality, ICU length of stay or RRT on discharge were noted [4].A large retrospective study in over 53,000 ICU patients admitted with sepsis and on vasopressors across 360 US hospitals showed that balanced fluids were associated with lower in-hospital mortality especially when higher volume of IVFs were infused. While no differences were seen in terms of AKI rates, lower risk of CKD was noted in balanced fluid groups [5].

In post-surgical populations, an observational study analyzing saline vs balanced fluids over 30,000 patients showed significantly lower mortality, renal failure, acidosis investigation/intervention rates with balanced fluids [6].Additionally, a meta-analysis assessing outcomes in peri-operative and ICU patients based on whether they received high or low chloride containing fluids was performed on over 6000 patients across 21 studies. No association with mortality was found. However, statistically significant correlations were noted between high chloride fluids and hyperchloremia, metabolic acidosis, AKI, mechanical ventilation times and blood transfusion volumes [7].

In 2015, a large RCT involving ICUs in New Zealand evaluated balanced crystalloids vs normal saline and rates of AKI in a double-blind, cluster-randomized, double-crossover trial (the SPLIT study). 2278 patients from medical and surgical ICUs were enrolled. Patients already receiving RRT were excluded. No significant difference in incidence of AKI (defined as a two-fold rise or a 0.5mg/dL increase in creatinine), new RRT or mortality was detected between the two groups [8].

Given the ambiguity and lack of consensus on outcomes, the current SMART study addresses an important gap in knowledge. Its large sample size makes it well powered, geared to detect small signals in outcomes. Inclusion of medical, surgical, and neurologic ICUs helps diversify applicability. Being a pragmatic, intention-to-treat RCT, the study design mirrors real-world clinical practice.

In terms of patient acuity, less than a third of the patients were intubated or on vasopressors. Predicted mortality rates were 9%. In addition, median volume infused was around 1 L. Given the investigators’ conclusions that the MAKE30 outcome signals were more pronounced with larger volumes of infusions, this brings into question whether more dramatic signals could have been appreciated in each of the 3 components of the primary outcome had the study population been a higher acuity group requiring larger infusion volumes.

While the composite MAKE30 outcome reflects a sense of an overarching benefit with balanced crystalloids, there was no statistically significant improvement noted in each primary component. This questions the rationale for combining the components of the MAKE30 outcome as well as how generalizable the results are. Overall, as is the case with many studies that evaluate a composite outcome, this raises concern about overestimation of the intervention’s true impact.

The study was un-blinded, raising concern for bias, and it was a single-center trial, which raises questions regarding generalizability. Un-blinding may have played a role in influencing decisions to initiate RRT earlier in the saline group. The extent to which this impacted RRT rates (one of the MAKE30 outcomes), remains unclear. Furthermore, approximately 5% of the participants received unassigned fluids, and while this is in line with the pragmatic/intention-to-treat design, the clinical repercussions remain unclear. Hyperkalemia is an exclusion criterion for balanced fluids and it is unclear whether a proportion of patients presenting with AKI-associated hyperkalemia were restricted from receiving balanced fluids. In addition, very few patients received Plasma-Lyte, confining the study’s conclusions to lactated Ringer’s alone.

Despite these pitfalls, the study addresses an extremely relevant clinical question. It urges clinicians to tailor fluid choices on a case-by-case basis and pay attention to the long-term implications of daily biochemical changes on renal outcomes, particularly in large volume resuscitation scenarios. There is a negligible cost difference between lactated Ringer’s and saline, making use of a balanced fluid economically feasible. The number needed to treat for MAKE30 based on this study is 94 patients, and changes in clinical practice extrapolated to ICUs nationwide could have an impact on renal outcomes from an epidemiologic point of view without risking financial burden at an institution level.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Overall, this trial clarifies an important gap in knowledge regarding fluid choice in the care of critically ill adults. The composite outcome of death, persistent renal dysfunction, and new RRT was significantly lower when a balanced fluid was used in comparison with saline. The ease of implementation, low financial impact, and epidemiologically significant renal outcomes supports a consideration for change in practice. However, clinicians should evaluate implementation on a case-by-case basis. More studies evaluating MAKE30 outcomes individually in specific diagnoses and clinical contexts are necessary. Moreover, data on long-term MAKE outcomes would help characterize long-term public health implications of 30-day effects.

—Divya Padmanabhan Menon, MD, Christopher L. Trautman, MD, and Neal M. Patel, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the intensive care unit (ICU) population.

Design. Pragmatic, un-blinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover clinical trial (the SMART study).

Setting and participants. The study evaluated critically ill adults > 18 years of age, admitted and readmitted into 5 ICUs, both medical and surgical, from June 2015 to April 2017. 15,802 patients were enrolled, powered to detect a 1.9% percentage point difference in primary outcome. ICUs were randomized to use either balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s [LR] or Plasma-Lyte A, depending on the provider’s preference) or normal saline during alternate calendar months. Relative contraindications to use of balanced crystalloids included traumatic brain injury and hyperkalemia. The admitting emergency rooms and operating rooms coordinated intravenous fluid (IVF) choice with their respective ICUs. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. In addition to primary and secondary outcome analyses, subgroup analyses based on factors including total IVF volume to day 30, vasopressor use, predicted in-hospital mortality, sepsis or traumatic brain injury diagnoses, ICU type, source of admission, and kidney function at baseline were also done. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses taking into account the total volume of crystalloid, crossover and excluding readmissions were performed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that met at least 1 of the 3 criteria for a Major Adverse Kidney Event at day 30 (MAKE30) or discharge, whichever occurred earlier. MAKE30 is a composite measure consisting of death, persistent renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 200% baseline), or new renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patients previously on RRT were included for mortality analysis alone. In addition, secondary clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality (prior to ICU discharge, at day 30 and day 60), ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, ICU-free days, days alive and RRT-free days in the first 28 days were assessed. Secondary renal outcomes such as persistent renal dysfunction, acute kidney injury (AKI) ≥ stage 2 (per Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Criteria {KDIGO}) criteria, new RRT, highest creatinine during hospitalization, creatinine at discharge and highest change in creatinine during hospitalization were also evaluated.

Results. 7942 patients were randomized to the balanced crystalloid group and 7860 to the saline group. Median age for both groups was 58 years and 57.6% patients were male. In terms of patient acuity, approximately 34% patients were on mechanical ventilation, 26% were on vasopressors, and around 14% carried a diagnosis of sepsis. At time of presentation, 17% had chronic kidney disease (CKD) ≥ stage 3 and approximately 5% were on RRT. Around 8% came in with AKI ≥ stage 2. Baseline creatinine in the both groups was 0.89 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.74–1.1). Median volumes of balanced crystalloid and saline administered was 1L (IQR 0–3.2L) and 1.02L (IQR 0–3.5L) respectively. Less than 5% in both groups received unassigned fluids. Predicted risk of in-hospital death for both groups was approximately 9%.

Significantly higher number of patients had plasma chloride ≥ 110 mmol/L and bicarbonate ≤ 20 mmol/L in the saline group (P < 0.001). In terms of primary outcome, MAKE30 rates in the balanced crystalloid vs saline groups were 14.3 vs 15.4 (marginal odds ratio {OR} 0.91, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.84–0.99, P = 0.04) with similar results in the pre-specified sensitivity analyses. This difference was more prominent with larger volumes of infused fluids. All 3 components of composite primary outcome were improved in the crystalloid group, although none of the 3 individually achieved statistical significance.

Overall, mortality before discharge and within 30 days of admission in the balanced crystalloid group was 10.3% compared to 11.1% in the saline group (OR 0.9, CI 0.8–1.01, P = 0.06). In-hospital death before ICU discharge and at 60 days also mirrored this trend, although they did not achieve statistical significance either. Of note, in septic patients, 30-day mortality rates were 25.2 vs 29.4 in the balanced crystalloid and saline groups respectively (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, P = 0.02).

With regard to renal outcomes in the balanced crystalloid vs normal saline groups, results were as follows: new RRT {2.5 vs 2.9%, P = 0.08}, new AKI development 10.7% vs 11.5% (OR 0.9, P = 0.09). In patients with a history of previous RRT or presenting with an AKI, crystalloids appeared to provide better MAKE30 outcomes, although not achieving statistical significance.

Conclusion. In the critically ill population, balanced crystalloids provide a beneficial effect over normal saline on the composite outcome of persistent renal dysfunction, new RRT and mortality at day 30.

Commentary

Unbalanced crystalloids, especially normal saline, are the most commonly used IVF for resuscitation in the critically ill. Given the data suggesting risk of kidney injury, acidosis, and effect on mortality with the use of normal saline, this study aimed to evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the ICU population.

Interest in the consequences of hyperchloremia and metabolic acidosis from supra-physiologic chloride concentrations in normal saline first stemmed from data in preclinical models, which demonstrated that chloride-induced renal inflammation adversely impacted renal function and mortality [1,2]. While in theory “balanced” solutions carry dual benefits of both an electrolyte composition that closely mirrors plasma and the presence of buffers which improve acid-base milieu, the exact repercussions on patient-centered outcomes with use of one over the other remain unknown.

An exploratory randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating biochemistry up to day 4 in normal saline vs Plasma-Lyte groups in 70 critically ill adults showed significantly higher hyperchloremia with normal saline but no difference in AKI rates between the two groups [3]. A pilot study evaluating “chloride-restrictive vs chloride liberal” strategies in 760 ICU patients involved use of Hartmann’s solution and Plasma-Lyte in place of saline for a 6-month period except in case of specific contraindications such as traumatic brain injury.  Results indicated that incidence of AKI and use of RRT significantly reduced by limiting chloride. No changes in mortality, ICU length of stay or RRT on discharge were noted [4].A large retrospective study in over 53,000 ICU patients admitted with sepsis and on vasopressors across 360 US hospitals showed that balanced fluids were associated with lower in-hospital mortality especially when higher volume of IVFs were infused. While no differences were seen in terms of AKI rates, lower risk of CKD was noted in balanced fluid groups [5].

In post-surgical populations, an observational study analyzing saline vs balanced fluids over 30,000 patients showed significantly lower mortality, renal failure, acidosis investigation/intervention rates with balanced fluids [6].Additionally, a meta-analysis assessing outcomes in peri-operative and ICU patients based on whether they received high or low chloride containing fluids was performed on over 6000 patients across 21 studies. No association with mortality was found. However, statistically significant correlations were noted between high chloride fluids and hyperchloremia, metabolic acidosis, AKI, mechanical ventilation times and blood transfusion volumes [7].

In 2015, a large RCT involving ICUs in New Zealand evaluated balanced crystalloids vs normal saline and rates of AKI in a double-blind, cluster-randomized, double-crossover trial (the SPLIT study). 2278 patients from medical and surgical ICUs were enrolled. Patients already receiving RRT were excluded. No significant difference in incidence of AKI (defined as a two-fold rise or a 0.5mg/dL increase in creatinine), new RRT or mortality was detected between the two groups [8].

Given the ambiguity and lack of consensus on outcomes, the current SMART study addresses an important gap in knowledge. Its large sample size makes it well powered, geared to detect small signals in outcomes. Inclusion of medical, surgical, and neurologic ICUs helps diversify applicability. Being a pragmatic, intention-to-treat RCT, the study design mirrors real-world clinical practice.

In terms of patient acuity, less than a third of the patients were intubated or on vasopressors. Predicted mortality rates were 9%. In addition, median volume infused was around 1 L. Given the investigators’ conclusions that the MAKE30 outcome signals were more pronounced with larger volumes of infusions, this brings into question whether more dramatic signals could have been appreciated in each of the 3 components of the primary outcome had the study population been a higher acuity group requiring larger infusion volumes.

While the composite MAKE30 outcome reflects a sense of an overarching benefit with balanced crystalloids, there was no statistically significant improvement noted in each primary component. This questions the rationale for combining the components of the MAKE30 outcome as well as how generalizable the results are. Overall, as is the case with many studies that evaluate a composite outcome, this raises concern about overestimation of the intervention’s true impact.

The study was un-blinded, raising concern for bias, and it was a single-center trial, which raises questions regarding generalizability. Un-blinding may have played a role in influencing decisions to initiate RRT earlier in the saline group. The extent to which this impacted RRT rates (one of the MAKE30 outcomes), remains unclear. Furthermore, approximately 5% of the participants received unassigned fluids, and while this is in line with the pragmatic/intention-to-treat design, the clinical repercussions remain unclear. Hyperkalemia is an exclusion criterion for balanced fluids and it is unclear whether a proportion of patients presenting with AKI-associated hyperkalemia were restricted from receiving balanced fluids. In addition, very few patients received Plasma-Lyte, confining the study’s conclusions to lactated Ringer’s alone.

Despite these pitfalls, the study addresses an extremely relevant clinical question. It urges clinicians to tailor fluid choices on a case-by-case basis and pay attention to the long-term implications of daily biochemical changes on renal outcomes, particularly in large volume resuscitation scenarios. There is a negligible cost difference between lactated Ringer’s and saline, making use of a balanced fluid economically feasible. The number needed to treat for MAKE30 based on this study is 94 patients, and changes in clinical practice extrapolated to ICUs nationwide could have an impact on renal outcomes from an epidemiologic point of view without risking financial burden at an institution level.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Overall, this trial clarifies an important gap in knowledge regarding fluid choice in the care of critically ill adults. The composite outcome of death, persistent renal dysfunction, and new RRT was significantly lower when a balanced fluid was used in comparison with saline. The ease of implementation, low financial impact, and epidemiologically significant renal outcomes supports a consideration for change in practice. However, clinicians should evaluate implementation on a case-by-case basis. More studies evaluating MAKE30 outcomes individually in specific diagnoses and clinical contexts are necessary. Moreover, data on long-term MAKE outcomes would help characterize long-term public health implications of 30-day effects.

—Divya Padmanabhan Menon, MD, Christopher L. Trautman, MD, and Neal M. Patel, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the intensive care unit (ICU) population.

Design. Pragmatic, un-blinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover clinical trial (the SMART study).

Setting and participants. The study evaluated critically ill adults > 18 years of age, admitted and readmitted into 5 ICUs, both medical and surgical, from June 2015 to April 2017. 15,802 patients were enrolled, powered to detect a 1.9% percentage point difference in primary outcome. ICUs were randomized to use either balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s [LR] or Plasma-Lyte A, depending on the provider’s preference) or normal saline during alternate calendar months. Relative contraindications to use of balanced crystalloids included traumatic brain injury and hyperkalemia. The admitting emergency rooms and operating rooms coordinated intravenous fluid (IVF) choice with their respective ICUs. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. In addition to primary and secondary outcome analyses, subgroup analyses based on factors including total IVF volume to day 30, vasopressor use, predicted in-hospital mortality, sepsis or traumatic brain injury diagnoses, ICU type, source of admission, and kidney function at baseline were also done. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses taking into account the total volume of crystalloid, crossover and excluding readmissions were performed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that met at least 1 of the 3 criteria for a Major Adverse Kidney Event at day 30 (MAKE30) or discharge, whichever occurred earlier. MAKE30 is a composite measure consisting of death, persistent renal dysfunction (creatinine ≥ 200% baseline), or new renal replacement therapy (RRT). Patients previously on RRT were included for mortality analysis alone. In addition, secondary clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality (prior to ICU discharge, at day 30 and day 60), ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, ICU-free days, days alive and RRT-free days in the first 28 days were assessed. Secondary renal outcomes such as persistent renal dysfunction, acute kidney injury (AKI) ≥ stage 2 (per Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Criteria {KDIGO}) criteria, new RRT, highest creatinine during hospitalization, creatinine at discharge and highest change in creatinine during hospitalization were also evaluated.

Results. 7942 patients were randomized to the balanced crystalloid group and 7860 to the saline group. Median age for both groups was 58 years and 57.6% patients were male. In terms of patient acuity, approximately 34% patients were on mechanical ventilation, 26% were on vasopressors, and around 14% carried a diagnosis of sepsis. At time of presentation, 17% had chronic kidney disease (CKD) ≥ stage 3 and approximately 5% were on RRT. Around 8% came in with AKI ≥ stage 2. Baseline creatinine in the both groups was 0.89 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.74–1.1). Median volumes of balanced crystalloid and saline administered was 1L (IQR 0–3.2L) and 1.02L (IQR 0–3.5L) respectively. Less than 5% in both groups received unassigned fluids. Predicted risk of in-hospital death for both groups was approximately 9%.

Significantly higher number of patients had plasma chloride ≥ 110 mmol/L and bicarbonate ≤ 20 mmol/L in the saline group (P < 0.001). In terms of primary outcome, MAKE30 rates in the balanced crystalloid vs saline groups were 14.3 vs 15.4 (marginal odds ratio {OR} 0.91, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.84–0.99, P = 0.04) with similar results in the pre-specified sensitivity analyses. This difference was more prominent with larger volumes of infused fluids. All 3 components of composite primary outcome were improved in the crystalloid group, although none of the 3 individually achieved statistical significance.

Overall, mortality before discharge and within 30 days of admission in the balanced crystalloid group was 10.3% compared to 11.1% in the saline group (OR 0.9, CI 0.8–1.01, P = 0.06). In-hospital death before ICU discharge and at 60 days also mirrored this trend, although they did not achieve statistical significance either. Of note, in septic patients, 30-day mortality rates were 25.2 vs 29.4 in the balanced crystalloid and saline groups respectively (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, P = 0.02).

With regard to renal outcomes in the balanced crystalloid vs normal saline groups, results were as follows: new RRT {2.5 vs 2.9%, P = 0.08}, new AKI development 10.7% vs 11.5% (OR 0.9, P = 0.09). In patients with a history of previous RRT or presenting with an AKI, crystalloids appeared to provide better MAKE30 outcomes, although not achieving statistical significance.

Conclusion. In the critically ill population, balanced crystalloids provide a beneficial effect over normal saline on the composite outcome of persistent renal dysfunction, new RRT and mortality at day 30.

Commentary

Unbalanced crystalloids, especially normal saline, are the most commonly used IVF for resuscitation in the critically ill. Given the data suggesting risk of kidney injury, acidosis, and effect on mortality with the use of normal saline, this study aimed to evaluate balanced crystalloids in comparison with normal saline in the ICU population.

Interest in the consequences of hyperchloremia and metabolic acidosis from supra-physiologic chloride concentrations in normal saline first stemmed from data in preclinical models, which demonstrated that chloride-induced renal inflammation adversely impacted renal function and mortality [1,2]. While in theory “balanced” solutions carry dual benefits of both an electrolyte composition that closely mirrors plasma and the presence of buffers which improve acid-base milieu, the exact repercussions on patient-centered outcomes with use of one over the other remain unknown.

An exploratory randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating biochemistry up to day 4 in normal saline vs Plasma-Lyte groups in 70 critically ill adults showed significantly higher hyperchloremia with normal saline but no difference in AKI rates between the two groups [3]. A pilot study evaluating “chloride-restrictive vs chloride liberal” strategies in 760 ICU patients involved use of Hartmann’s solution and Plasma-Lyte in place of saline for a 6-month period except in case of specific contraindications such as traumatic brain injury.  Results indicated that incidence of AKI and use of RRT significantly reduced by limiting chloride. No changes in mortality, ICU length of stay or RRT on discharge were noted [4].A large retrospective study in over 53,000 ICU patients admitted with sepsis and on vasopressors across 360 US hospitals showed that balanced fluids were associated with lower in-hospital mortality especially when higher volume of IVFs were infused. While no differences were seen in terms of AKI rates, lower risk of CKD was noted in balanced fluid groups [5].

In post-surgical populations, an observational study analyzing saline vs balanced fluids over 30,000 patients showed significantly lower mortality, renal failure, acidosis investigation/intervention rates with balanced fluids [6].Additionally, a meta-analysis assessing outcomes in peri-operative and ICU patients based on whether they received high or low chloride containing fluids was performed on over 6000 patients across 21 studies. No association with mortality was found. However, statistically significant correlations were noted between high chloride fluids and hyperchloremia, metabolic acidosis, AKI, mechanical ventilation times and blood transfusion volumes [7].

In 2015, a large RCT involving ICUs in New Zealand evaluated balanced crystalloids vs normal saline and rates of AKI in a double-blind, cluster-randomized, double-crossover trial (the SPLIT study). 2278 patients from medical and surgical ICUs were enrolled. Patients already receiving RRT were excluded. No significant difference in incidence of AKI (defined as a two-fold rise or a 0.5mg/dL increase in creatinine), new RRT or mortality was detected between the two groups [8].

Given the ambiguity and lack of consensus on outcomes, the current SMART study addresses an important gap in knowledge. Its large sample size makes it well powered, geared to detect small signals in outcomes. Inclusion of medical, surgical, and neurologic ICUs helps diversify applicability. Being a pragmatic, intention-to-treat RCT, the study design mirrors real-world clinical practice.

In terms of patient acuity, less than a third of the patients were intubated or on vasopressors. Predicted mortality rates were 9%. In addition, median volume infused was around 1 L. Given the investigators’ conclusions that the MAKE30 outcome signals were more pronounced with larger volumes of infusions, this brings into question whether more dramatic signals could have been appreciated in each of the 3 components of the primary outcome had the study population been a higher acuity group requiring larger infusion volumes.

While the composite MAKE30 outcome reflects a sense of an overarching benefit with balanced crystalloids, there was no statistically significant improvement noted in each primary component. This questions the rationale for combining the components of the MAKE30 outcome as well as how generalizable the results are. Overall, as is the case with many studies that evaluate a composite outcome, this raises concern about overestimation of the intervention’s true impact.

The study was un-blinded, raising concern for bias, and it was a single-center trial, which raises questions regarding generalizability. Un-blinding may have played a role in influencing decisions to initiate RRT earlier in the saline group. The extent to which this impacted RRT rates (one of the MAKE30 outcomes), remains unclear. Furthermore, approximately 5% of the participants received unassigned fluids, and while this is in line with the pragmatic/intention-to-treat design, the clinical repercussions remain unclear. Hyperkalemia is an exclusion criterion for balanced fluids and it is unclear whether a proportion of patients presenting with AKI-associated hyperkalemia were restricted from receiving balanced fluids. In addition, very few patients received Plasma-Lyte, confining the study’s conclusions to lactated Ringer’s alone.

Despite these pitfalls, the study addresses an extremely relevant clinical question. It urges clinicians to tailor fluid choices on a case-by-case basis and pay attention to the long-term implications of daily biochemical changes on renal outcomes, particularly in large volume resuscitation scenarios. There is a negligible cost difference between lactated Ringer’s and saline, making use of a balanced fluid economically feasible. The number needed to treat for MAKE30 based on this study is 94 patients, and changes in clinical practice extrapolated to ICUs nationwide could have an impact on renal outcomes from an epidemiologic point of view without risking financial burden at an institution level.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Overall, this trial clarifies an important gap in knowledge regarding fluid choice in the care of critically ill adults. The composite outcome of death, persistent renal dysfunction, and new RRT was significantly lower when a balanced fluid was used in comparison with saline. The ease of implementation, low financial impact, and epidemiologically significant renal outcomes supports a consideration for change in practice. However, clinicians should evaluate implementation on a case-by-case basis. More studies evaluating MAKE30 outcomes individually in specific diagnoses and clinical contexts are necessary. Moreover, data on long-term MAKE outcomes would help characterize long-term public health implications of 30-day effects.

—Divya Padmanabhan Menon, MD, Christopher L. Trautman, MD, and Neal M. Patel, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the prognostic impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock.

Design. Retrospective study using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health) registry.

Setting and participants. Among the 13,104 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-NIH registry, 659 patients with STEMI with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock who underwent primary PCI were selected.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause death at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included patient-oriented composite outcome (composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) and its individual components.

Main results. A total of 260 patients were treated with multivessel PCI and 399 patients were treated with infarct-related artery (IRA) PCI only. The risk of all-cause death was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (21.3% vs 31.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Non-IRA repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the multivessel group (6.7% vs 8.2%; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17–0.90, P = 0.028). In multivariate model, multivessel PCI was independently associated with reduced risk of 1-year all-cause death and patient-oriented composite outcome.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death and non-IRA repeat revascularization.

Commentary

Historically, non-culprit vessel revascularization in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was not routinely performed. However, recent trials have shown the benefit of non-culprit vessel revascularization in patients with hemodynamically stable AMI [1–3]. The result of these trials have led to upgrade in U.S. guideline recommendations for non-infarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with AMI to Class IIb from Class III [4]. Whether these findings can be extended to hemodynamically unstable (cardiogenic shock) patients is controversial. Recently, results of a well-designed randomized control trial (CULPRIT-SHOCK) suggested worse outcome with immediate multivessel PCI in this population [5]. The composite endpoint of death and renal replacement therapy at 30 days was higher in the multivessel PCI at the time of primary PCI group compared to initial culprit lesion only group (55.9% vs 45.9%, P = 0.01). The composite endpoint was mainly driven by death (51.6% vs 43.3%, P = 0.03), and the rate of renal replacement therapy was numerically higher in the mutivessel PCI group (16.4% vs 11.6%, P = 0.07).

Lee et al investigated a similar clinical question using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH registry data [6]. In this study, the primary endpoint of all cause death occurred in 53 of the 260 patients (21.3%) in the multivessel PCI group and 126 of the 399 patients (31.7%) in the IRA-only PCI group (relative risk [RR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Similarly, the multivessel PCI group had lower non-IRA repeat revascularization (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90, P = 0.028) and lower patient-oriented composite outcome (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77, P < 0.001). These results remained similar after multivariate adjustment, propensity matching, and inverse probability weighted analysis.

The discrepancy of the results of the KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK is likely related to the difference in the design of the two studies. First, CUPRIT-SHOCK compared multivessel revascularization during index primary PCI to culprit-only revascularization strategy with staged revascularization if necessary. There were 9.4% randomized to multivessel PCI who crossed over to IRA-only PCI and 17.4% randomized to IRA-only PCI who crossed over to multivessel PCI during the index hospitalization. In contrast, the KAMIR registry compared patients who underwent IRA-only PCI to multivessel PCI, which included those who had immediate revascularization during the primary PCI and those who had staged revascularization during the index hospitalization. Therefore, multivessel PCI is defined very differently in both studies and cannot be considered equivalent.

Second, CULPRIT-SHOCK was a prospective randomized control study and KAMIR was an observational study analyzing data from a prospectively collected large database. Although multiple statistical adjustments were performed, this observational nature of the study is subject to selection bias and other unmeasured biases such as frailty assessment.

Third, the timing of the revascularization was different between two studies. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, immediate revascularization of non-IRA was achieved in 90.6% of patients in the multivessel PCI group. On the other hand, only 60.4% of patients of multivessel PCI group in KAMIR study underwent immediate revascularization of the non-IRA and 39.6 % of patients underwent staged procedure. This leads to significant survival bias, since these 39.6% of patients survived the initial event to be able to undergo the staged procedure. Patients who had planned staged intervention but could not survive were included in the IRA-only PCI group.

Fourth, there may be difference in the severity of the patient population included in the analysis. In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 70% stenosis, and all chronic total occlusions (CTO) were attempted in the multivessel PCI group according to trial protocol. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, 23% of patient had one or more CTO lesions. In the KAMIR registry, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 50% stenosis of the non-culprit vessel and CTO vessels were not accounted for. Although CTO intervention improves angina and ejection fraction [7,8], whether CTO intervention has mortality benefit needs further investigation. In a recent EXPLORE trial, the feasibility and safety of intervention of chronic total occlusion in non-infarct-related artery in STEMI population was established [8]. However, only hemodynamically stable patients were included in the study and all CTO interventions were performed in staged fashion (5 ± 2 days after index procedure) [8]. There is a possibility of attempting CTO PCI in this acute setting caused more harm than benefit.

Finally, in order to be enrolled in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, patients needed to meet stringent criteria for cardiogenic shock. In KAMIR study, this data was retrospectively determined and individual components used to define cardiogenic shock were not available. This difference may have led to inclusion of more stable patients as evidenced by lower mortality rate in KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK (51.6% mortality for multivessel PCI in CULPRIT-SHOCK and 21.3% mortality for multivessel PCI patients in KAMIR study). CULPRIT-SHOCK trial had a high rate of mechanical ventilation (~80%), requirement of catecholamine support (~90%), and long ICU stays (median 5 days). This information is not reported in the KAMIR study.

Considering above differences in the study design, the evidence level for CULPRIT-SHOCK appears to be stronger compared to the KAMIR study, which should be considered as hypothesis-generating as all other observational studies. However, the KAMIR study is still an important study suggesting possible benefit of multivessel PCI in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. This leads us to an answered question whether staged multivessel intervention or less aggressive multivessel intervention (not attempting CTO) is a better option in this population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction, culprit lesion-only intervention and staged intervention if necessary, seems to be a better strategy. However, there may be benefit in multivessel intervention in this population, depending on the timing and revascularization strategy. Further studies are needed.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, and John E.A. Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the prognostic impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock.

Design. Retrospective study using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health) registry.

Setting and participants. Among the 13,104 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-NIH registry, 659 patients with STEMI with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock who underwent primary PCI were selected.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause death at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included patient-oriented composite outcome (composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) and its individual components.

Main results. A total of 260 patients were treated with multivessel PCI and 399 patients were treated with infarct-related artery (IRA) PCI only. The risk of all-cause death was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (21.3% vs 31.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Non-IRA repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the multivessel group (6.7% vs 8.2%; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17–0.90, P = 0.028). In multivariate model, multivessel PCI was independently associated with reduced risk of 1-year all-cause death and patient-oriented composite outcome.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death and non-IRA repeat revascularization.

Commentary

Historically, non-culprit vessel revascularization in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was not routinely performed. However, recent trials have shown the benefit of non-culprit vessel revascularization in patients with hemodynamically stable AMI [1–3]. The result of these trials have led to upgrade in U.S. guideline recommendations for non-infarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with AMI to Class IIb from Class III [4]. Whether these findings can be extended to hemodynamically unstable (cardiogenic shock) patients is controversial. Recently, results of a well-designed randomized control trial (CULPRIT-SHOCK) suggested worse outcome with immediate multivessel PCI in this population [5]. The composite endpoint of death and renal replacement therapy at 30 days was higher in the multivessel PCI at the time of primary PCI group compared to initial culprit lesion only group (55.9% vs 45.9%, P = 0.01). The composite endpoint was mainly driven by death (51.6% vs 43.3%, P = 0.03), and the rate of renal replacement therapy was numerically higher in the mutivessel PCI group (16.4% vs 11.6%, P = 0.07).

Lee et al investigated a similar clinical question using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH registry data [6]. In this study, the primary endpoint of all cause death occurred in 53 of the 260 patients (21.3%) in the multivessel PCI group and 126 of the 399 patients (31.7%) in the IRA-only PCI group (relative risk [RR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Similarly, the multivessel PCI group had lower non-IRA repeat revascularization (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90, P = 0.028) and lower patient-oriented composite outcome (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77, P < 0.001). These results remained similar after multivariate adjustment, propensity matching, and inverse probability weighted analysis.

The discrepancy of the results of the KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK is likely related to the difference in the design of the two studies. First, CUPRIT-SHOCK compared multivessel revascularization during index primary PCI to culprit-only revascularization strategy with staged revascularization if necessary. There were 9.4% randomized to multivessel PCI who crossed over to IRA-only PCI and 17.4% randomized to IRA-only PCI who crossed over to multivessel PCI during the index hospitalization. In contrast, the KAMIR registry compared patients who underwent IRA-only PCI to multivessel PCI, which included those who had immediate revascularization during the primary PCI and those who had staged revascularization during the index hospitalization. Therefore, multivessel PCI is defined very differently in both studies and cannot be considered equivalent.

Second, CULPRIT-SHOCK was a prospective randomized control study and KAMIR was an observational study analyzing data from a prospectively collected large database. Although multiple statistical adjustments were performed, this observational nature of the study is subject to selection bias and other unmeasured biases such as frailty assessment.

Third, the timing of the revascularization was different between two studies. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, immediate revascularization of non-IRA was achieved in 90.6% of patients in the multivessel PCI group. On the other hand, only 60.4% of patients of multivessel PCI group in KAMIR study underwent immediate revascularization of the non-IRA and 39.6 % of patients underwent staged procedure. This leads to significant survival bias, since these 39.6% of patients survived the initial event to be able to undergo the staged procedure. Patients who had planned staged intervention but could not survive were included in the IRA-only PCI group.

Fourth, there may be difference in the severity of the patient population included in the analysis. In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 70% stenosis, and all chronic total occlusions (CTO) were attempted in the multivessel PCI group according to trial protocol. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, 23% of patient had one or more CTO lesions. In the KAMIR registry, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 50% stenosis of the non-culprit vessel and CTO vessels were not accounted for. Although CTO intervention improves angina and ejection fraction [7,8], whether CTO intervention has mortality benefit needs further investigation. In a recent EXPLORE trial, the feasibility and safety of intervention of chronic total occlusion in non-infarct-related artery in STEMI population was established [8]. However, only hemodynamically stable patients were included in the study and all CTO interventions were performed in staged fashion (5 ± 2 days after index procedure) [8]. There is a possibility of attempting CTO PCI in this acute setting caused more harm than benefit.

Finally, in order to be enrolled in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, patients needed to meet stringent criteria for cardiogenic shock. In KAMIR study, this data was retrospectively determined and individual components used to define cardiogenic shock were not available. This difference may have led to inclusion of more stable patients as evidenced by lower mortality rate in KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK (51.6% mortality for multivessel PCI in CULPRIT-SHOCK and 21.3% mortality for multivessel PCI patients in KAMIR study). CULPRIT-SHOCK trial had a high rate of mechanical ventilation (~80%), requirement of catecholamine support (~90%), and long ICU stays (median 5 days). This information is not reported in the KAMIR study.

Considering above differences in the study design, the evidence level for CULPRIT-SHOCK appears to be stronger compared to the KAMIR study, which should be considered as hypothesis-generating as all other observational studies. However, the KAMIR study is still an important study suggesting possible benefit of multivessel PCI in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. This leads us to an answered question whether staged multivessel intervention or less aggressive multivessel intervention (not attempting CTO) is a better option in this population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction, culprit lesion-only intervention and staged intervention if necessary, seems to be a better strategy. However, there may be benefit in multivessel intervention in this population, depending on the timing and revascularization strategy. Further studies are needed.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, and John E.A. Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the prognostic impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock.

Design. Retrospective study using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health) registry.

Setting and participants. Among the 13,104 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-NIH registry, 659 patients with STEMI with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock who underwent primary PCI were selected.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause death at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included patient-oriented composite outcome (composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) and its individual components.

Main results. A total of 260 patients were treated with multivessel PCI and 399 patients were treated with infarct-related artery (IRA) PCI only. The risk of all-cause death was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (21.3% vs 31.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Non-IRA repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the multivessel group (6.7% vs 8.2%; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17–0.90, P = 0.028). In multivariate model, multivessel PCI was independently associated with reduced risk of 1-year all-cause death and patient-oriented composite outcome.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death and non-IRA repeat revascularization.

Commentary

Historically, non-culprit vessel revascularization in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was not routinely performed. However, recent trials have shown the benefit of non-culprit vessel revascularization in patients with hemodynamically stable AMI [1–3]. The result of these trials have led to upgrade in U.S. guideline recommendations for non-infarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with AMI to Class IIb from Class III [4]. Whether these findings can be extended to hemodynamically unstable (cardiogenic shock) patients is controversial. Recently, results of a well-designed randomized control trial (CULPRIT-SHOCK) suggested worse outcome with immediate multivessel PCI in this population [5]. The composite endpoint of death and renal replacement therapy at 30 days was higher in the multivessel PCI at the time of primary PCI group compared to initial culprit lesion only group (55.9% vs 45.9%, P = 0.01). The composite endpoint was mainly driven by death (51.6% vs 43.3%, P = 0.03), and the rate of renal replacement therapy was numerically higher in the mutivessel PCI group (16.4% vs 11.6%, P = 0.07).

Lee et al investigated a similar clinical question using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH registry data [6]. In this study, the primary endpoint of all cause death occurred in 53 of the 260 patients (21.3%) in the multivessel PCI group and 126 of the 399 patients (31.7%) in the IRA-only PCI group (relative risk [RR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.82, P = 0.001). Similarly, the multivessel PCI group had lower non-IRA repeat revascularization (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90, P = 0.028) and lower patient-oriented composite outcome (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77, P < 0.001). These results remained similar after multivariate adjustment, propensity matching, and inverse probability weighted analysis.

The discrepancy of the results of the KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK is likely related to the difference in the design of the two studies. First, CUPRIT-SHOCK compared multivessel revascularization during index primary PCI to culprit-only revascularization strategy with staged revascularization if necessary. There were 9.4% randomized to multivessel PCI who crossed over to IRA-only PCI and 17.4% randomized to IRA-only PCI who crossed over to multivessel PCI during the index hospitalization. In contrast, the KAMIR registry compared patients who underwent IRA-only PCI to multivessel PCI, which included those who had immediate revascularization during the primary PCI and those who had staged revascularization during the index hospitalization. Therefore, multivessel PCI is defined very differently in both studies and cannot be considered equivalent.

Second, CULPRIT-SHOCK was a prospective randomized control study and KAMIR was an observational study analyzing data from a prospectively collected large database. Although multiple statistical adjustments were performed, this observational nature of the study is subject to selection bias and other unmeasured biases such as frailty assessment.

Third, the timing of the revascularization was different between two studies. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, immediate revascularization of non-IRA was achieved in 90.6% of patients in the multivessel PCI group. On the other hand, only 60.4% of patients of multivessel PCI group in KAMIR study underwent immediate revascularization of the non-IRA and 39.6 % of patients underwent staged procedure. This leads to significant survival bias, since these 39.6% of patients survived the initial event to be able to undergo the staged procedure. Patients who had planned staged intervention but could not survive were included in the IRA-only PCI group.

Fourth, there may be difference in the severity of the patient population included in the analysis. In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 70% stenosis, and all chronic total occlusions (CTO) were attempted in the multivessel PCI group according to trial protocol. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, 23% of patient had one or more CTO lesions. In the KAMIR registry, a significant non-IRA was defined as > 50% stenosis of the non-culprit vessel and CTO vessels were not accounted for. Although CTO intervention improves angina and ejection fraction [7,8], whether CTO intervention has mortality benefit needs further investigation. In a recent EXPLORE trial, the feasibility and safety of intervention of chronic total occlusion in non-infarct-related artery in STEMI population was established [8]. However, only hemodynamically stable patients were included in the study and all CTO interventions were performed in staged fashion (5 ± 2 days after index procedure) [8]. There is a possibility of attempting CTO PCI in this acute setting caused more harm than benefit.

Finally, in order to be enrolled in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, patients needed to meet stringent criteria for cardiogenic shock. In KAMIR study, this data was retrospectively determined and individual components used to define cardiogenic shock were not available. This difference may have led to inclusion of more stable patients as evidenced by lower mortality rate in KAMIR study compared to CULPRIT-SHOCK (51.6% mortality for multivessel PCI in CULPRIT-SHOCK and 21.3% mortality for multivessel PCI patients in KAMIR study). CULPRIT-SHOCK trial had a high rate of mechanical ventilation (~80%), requirement of catecholamine support (~90%), and long ICU stays (median 5 days). This information is not reported in the KAMIR study.

Considering above differences in the study design, the evidence level for CULPRIT-SHOCK appears to be stronger compared to the KAMIR study, which should be considered as hypothesis-generating as all other observational studies. However, the KAMIR study is still an important study suggesting possible benefit of multivessel PCI in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. This leads us to an answered question whether staged multivessel intervention or less aggressive multivessel intervention (not attempting CTO) is a better option in this population.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction, culprit lesion-only intervention and staged intervention if necessary, seems to be a better strategy. However, there may be benefit in multivessel intervention in this population, depending on the timing and revascularization strategy. Further studies are needed.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, and John E.A. Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether a combination of venetoclax with rituximab, compared to standard chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine with rituximab), improves outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Design. International, randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial (MURANO).

Setting and participants. Patients were eligilble for the study if they were 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia that required therapy, and had received 1 to 3 previous treatments (including at least 1 chemotherapy-containing regimen), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were randomly assigned either to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab. Randomization was stratified by geographic region, responsiveness to previous therapy, as well as the presence or absence of chromosome 17p deletion.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of disease progression or relapse or death from any cause, whichever occurs first. Secondary efficacy endpoints included independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (stratified by chromosome 17p deletion), independent review committee-assessed overall response rate and complete response rate, overall survival, rates of clearance of minimal residual disease, the duration of response, event-free survival, and the time to the next treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Main results. From 31 March 2014 to 23 September 2015, a total of 389 patients were enrolled at 109 sites in 20 countries and were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (n = 194), or bendamustine plus rituximab (n = 195). Median age was 65 years (range, 22–85) and a majority of the patients (73.8%) were men. Overall, the demographic and disease characteristics of the 2 groups were similar at baseline.

The median follow-up period was 23.8 months (range, 0–37.4). The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the venetoclax-rituximab group (median progression-free survival not reached, 32 events of progression or death in 194 patients) and was 17 months in the bendamustine-rituximab group (114 events in 195 patients). The 2-year rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.1–90.5) in the venetoclax-rituximab group and 36.3% (95% CI 28.5–44.0) in the bendamustine-rituximab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.17; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.25; P < 0.001). Benefit was consistent in favor of the venetoclax-rituximab group in all prespecified subgroup analyses, with or without chromosome 17p deletion.

The rate of overall survival was higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group than in the bendamustine-rituximab group, with 24-month rates of 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.25–0.90). Assessments of minimal residual disease were available for 366 of the 389 patients (94.1%). On the basis of peripheral-blood samples, the venetoclax-rituximab group had a higher minimal residual disease compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (121 of 194 patients [62.4%] vs. 26 of 195 patients [13.3%]). In bone marrow aspirate, higher rates of clearance of minimal residual disease was seen in the venetoclax-rituximab group (53 of 194 patients [27.3%]) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (3 of 195 patients [1.5%]).

In terms of safety, the most common adverse event reported was neutropenia (60.8% of the patients in the venetoclax-rituximab group vs. 44.1% of the patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group). This contributed to the overall higher grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate in the venetoclax-rituximab group (159 of the 194 patients, or 82.0%) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (132 of 188 patients, or 70.2%). The incidence of serious adverse events, as well as adverse events that resulted in death were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion. For patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, venetoclax plus rituximab resulted in significantly higher rates of progression-free survival than standard therapy with bendamustine plus rituximab.

Commentary

Despite advances in treatment, chronic lymphocytic leukemia remains incurable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy regimens, and almost all patient relapse after initial therapy. Following relapse of the disease, the goal is to provide durable progression-free survival, which may extend overall survival [1]. In a subset of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with deletion or mutation of TP53 loci on chromosome 17p13, their disease responds especially poorly to conventional treatment and they have a median survival of less than 3 years from the time of initiating first treatment.

Apoptosis defines a process of programmed cell death with an extrinsic and intrinsic cellular apoptotic pathway. B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 2 (BCL-2) protein is a key regulator of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway and almost all chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells elude apoptosis through overexpression of BCL-2. Venetoclax is an orally administered, highly selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor approved by the FDA in 2016 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with 17p deletion who have received at least 1 prior therapy [3]. There has been great interest in combining venetoclax with other active agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and B-cell receptor inhibitors. The combination of venetoclax with the CD20 antibody rituximab was found to be able to overcome micro-environment-induced resistance to venetoclax [4].

In this analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia by Seymour et al, the authors demonstrated a significantly higher rate of progression-free survival with venetoclax plus rituximab than with standard chemoimmunotherapy bendamustine plus rituximab. In addition, secondary efficacy measures, including the complete response rate, the overall response rate, and overall survival were also higher in the venetoclax plus rituximab than with bendamustine plus rituximab.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study was terminated early at the time of the data review on 6 September 2017. The independent data monitoring committee recommended that the primary analysis be conducted at that time because the prespecified statistical boundaries for early stopping were crossed for progression-free survival on the basis of stratified log-rank tests. In a letter to the editor, Alexander et al questioned the validity of results when design stages are violated. In immunotherapy trials, progression-free survival curves often separated at later time, rather than as a constant process; this violates the key assumption of proportionality of hazard functions. When the study was terminated early, post hoc confirmatory analyses and evaluations of robustness of the statistical plan could be used; however, prespecified analyses are critical to reproducibility in trials that are meant to be practice-changing [5]. Second, complete response rates were lower when responses was assessed by the independent review committee than when assessed by the investigator. While this represented a certain degree of author bias, the overall results were similar and the effect of venetoclax plus rituximab remain significantly better than bendamustine plus rituximab.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated that venetoclax is safe and effective when combining with rituximab in the treating of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with or without 17p deletion who have received at least one prior therapy. The most common serious adverse event was neutropenia, correlated with tumor lysis syndrome. Careful monitoring, slow dose ramp-up, and adequate prophylaxis can mitigate some of the adverse effects.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether a combination of venetoclax with rituximab, compared to standard chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine with rituximab), improves outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Design. International, randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial (MURANO).

Setting and participants. Patients were eligilble for the study if they were 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia that required therapy, and had received 1 to 3 previous treatments (including at least 1 chemotherapy-containing regimen), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were randomly assigned either to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab. Randomization was stratified by geographic region, responsiveness to previous therapy, as well as the presence or absence of chromosome 17p deletion.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of disease progression or relapse or death from any cause, whichever occurs first. Secondary efficacy endpoints included independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (stratified by chromosome 17p deletion), independent review committee-assessed overall response rate and complete response rate, overall survival, rates of clearance of minimal residual disease, the duration of response, event-free survival, and the time to the next treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Main results. From 31 March 2014 to 23 September 2015, a total of 389 patients were enrolled at 109 sites in 20 countries and were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (n = 194), or bendamustine plus rituximab (n = 195). Median age was 65 years (range, 22–85) and a majority of the patients (73.8%) were men. Overall, the demographic and disease characteristics of the 2 groups were similar at baseline.

The median follow-up period was 23.8 months (range, 0–37.4). The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the venetoclax-rituximab group (median progression-free survival not reached, 32 events of progression or death in 194 patients) and was 17 months in the bendamustine-rituximab group (114 events in 195 patients). The 2-year rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.1–90.5) in the venetoclax-rituximab group and 36.3% (95% CI 28.5–44.0) in the bendamustine-rituximab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.17; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.25; P < 0.001). Benefit was consistent in favor of the venetoclax-rituximab group in all prespecified subgroup analyses, with or without chromosome 17p deletion.

The rate of overall survival was higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group than in the bendamustine-rituximab group, with 24-month rates of 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.25–0.90). Assessments of minimal residual disease were available for 366 of the 389 patients (94.1%). On the basis of peripheral-blood samples, the venetoclax-rituximab group had a higher minimal residual disease compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (121 of 194 patients [62.4%] vs. 26 of 195 patients [13.3%]). In bone marrow aspirate, higher rates of clearance of minimal residual disease was seen in the venetoclax-rituximab group (53 of 194 patients [27.3%]) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (3 of 195 patients [1.5%]).

In terms of safety, the most common adverse event reported was neutropenia (60.8% of the patients in the venetoclax-rituximab group vs. 44.1% of the patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group). This contributed to the overall higher grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate in the venetoclax-rituximab group (159 of the 194 patients, or 82.0%) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (132 of 188 patients, or 70.2%). The incidence of serious adverse events, as well as adverse events that resulted in death were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion. For patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, venetoclax plus rituximab resulted in significantly higher rates of progression-free survival than standard therapy with bendamustine plus rituximab.

Commentary

Despite advances in treatment, chronic lymphocytic leukemia remains incurable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy regimens, and almost all patient relapse after initial therapy. Following relapse of the disease, the goal is to provide durable progression-free survival, which may extend overall survival [1]. In a subset of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with deletion or mutation of TP53 loci on chromosome 17p13, their disease responds especially poorly to conventional treatment and they have a median survival of less than 3 years from the time of initiating first treatment.

Apoptosis defines a process of programmed cell death with an extrinsic and intrinsic cellular apoptotic pathway. B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 2 (BCL-2) protein is a key regulator of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway and almost all chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells elude apoptosis through overexpression of BCL-2. Venetoclax is an orally administered, highly selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor approved by the FDA in 2016 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with 17p deletion who have received at least 1 prior therapy [3]. There has been great interest in combining venetoclax with other active agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and B-cell receptor inhibitors. The combination of venetoclax with the CD20 antibody rituximab was found to be able to overcome micro-environment-induced resistance to venetoclax [4].

In this analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia by Seymour et al, the authors demonstrated a significantly higher rate of progression-free survival with venetoclax plus rituximab than with standard chemoimmunotherapy bendamustine plus rituximab. In addition, secondary efficacy measures, including the complete response rate, the overall response rate, and overall survival were also higher in the venetoclax plus rituximab than with bendamustine plus rituximab.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study was terminated early at the time of the data review on 6 September 2017. The independent data monitoring committee recommended that the primary analysis be conducted at that time because the prespecified statistical boundaries for early stopping were crossed for progression-free survival on the basis of stratified log-rank tests. In a letter to the editor, Alexander et al questioned the validity of results when design stages are violated. In immunotherapy trials, progression-free survival curves often separated at later time, rather than as a constant process; this violates the key assumption of proportionality of hazard functions. When the study was terminated early, post hoc confirmatory analyses and evaluations of robustness of the statistical plan could be used; however, prespecified analyses are critical to reproducibility in trials that are meant to be practice-changing [5]. Second, complete response rates were lower when responses was assessed by the independent review committee than when assessed by the investigator. While this represented a certain degree of author bias, the overall results were similar and the effect of venetoclax plus rituximab remain significantly better than bendamustine plus rituximab.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated that venetoclax is safe and effective when combining with rituximab in the treating of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with or without 17p deletion who have received at least one prior therapy. The most common serious adverse event was neutropenia, correlated with tumor lysis syndrome. Careful monitoring, slow dose ramp-up, and adequate prophylaxis can mitigate some of the adverse effects.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether a combination of venetoclax with rituximab, compared to standard chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine with rituximab), improves outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Design. International, randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial (MURANO).

Setting and participants. Patients were eligilble for the study if they were 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia that required therapy, and had received 1 to 3 previous treatments (including at least 1 chemotherapy-containing regimen), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were randomly assigned either to receive venetoclax plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab. Randomization was stratified by geographic region, responsiveness to previous therapy, as well as the presence or absence of chromosome 17p deletion.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of disease progression or relapse or death from any cause, whichever occurs first. Secondary efficacy endpoints included independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (stratified by chromosome 17p deletion), independent review committee-assessed overall response rate and complete response rate, overall survival, rates of clearance of minimal residual disease, the duration of response, event-free survival, and the time to the next treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Main results. From 31 March 2014 to 23 September 2015, a total of 389 patients were enrolled at 109 sites in 20 countries and were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (n = 194), or bendamustine plus rituximab (n = 195). Median age was 65 years (range, 22–85) and a majority of the patients (73.8%) were men. Overall, the demographic and disease characteristics of the 2 groups were similar at baseline.

The median follow-up period was 23.8 months (range, 0–37.4). The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the venetoclax-rituximab group (median progression-free survival not reached, 32 events of progression or death in 194 patients) and was 17 months in the bendamustine-rituximab group (114 events in 195 patients). The 2-year rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.1–90.5) in the venetoclax-rituximab group and 36.3% (95% CI 28.5–44.0) in the bendamustine-rituximab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.17; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.25; P < 0.001). Benefit was consistent in favor of the venetoclax-rituximab group in all prespecified subgroup analyses, with or without chromosome 17p deletion.

The rate of overall survival was higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group than in the bendamustine-rituximab group, with 24-month rates of 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.25–0.90). Assessments of minimal residual disease were available for 366 of the 389 patients (94.1%). On the basis of peripheral-blood samples, the venetoclax-rituximab group had a higher minimal residual disease compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (121 of 194 patients [62.4%] vs. 26 of 195 patients [13.3%]). In bone marrow aspirate, higher rates of clearance of minimal residual disease was seen in the venetoclax-rituximab group (53 of 194 patients [27.3%]) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (3 of 195 patients [1.5%]).

In terms of safety, the most common adverse event reported was neutropenia (60.8% of the patients in the venetoclax-rituximab group vs. 44.1% of the patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group). This contributed to the overall higher grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate in the venetoclax-rituximab group (159 of the 194 patients, or 82.0%) as compared to the bendamustine-rituximab group (132 of 188 patients, or 70.2%). The incidence of serious adverse events, as well as adverse events that resulted in death were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion. For patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, venetoclax plus rituximab resulted in significantly higher rates of progression-free survival than standard therapy with bendamustine plus rituximab.

Commentary

Despite advances in treatment, chronic lymphocytic leukemia remains incurable with conventional chemoimmunotherapy regimens, and almost all patient relapse after initial therapy. Following relapse of the disease, the goal is to provide durable progression-free survival, which may extend overall survival [1]. In a subset of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with deletion or mutation of TP53 loci on chromosome 17p13, their disease responds especially poorly to conventional treatment and they have a median survival of less than 3 years from the time of initiating first treatment.

Apoptosis defines a process of programmed cell death with an extrinsic and intrinsic cellular apoptotic pathway. B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 2 (BCL-2) protein is a key regulator of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway and almost all chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells elude apoptosis through overexpression of BCL-2. Venetoclax is an orally administered, highly selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor approved by the FDA in 2016 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with 17p deletion who have received at least 1 prior therapy [3]. There has been great interest in combining venetoclax with other active agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and B-cell receptor inhibitors. The combination of venetoclax with the CD20 antibody rituximab was found to be able to overcome micro-environment-induced resistance to venetoclax [4].

In this analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia by Seymour et al, the authors demonstrated a significantly higher rate of progression-free survival with venetoclax plus rituximab than with standard chemoimmunotherapy bendamustine plus rituximab. In addition, secondary efficacy measures, including the complete response rate, the overall response rate, and overall survival were also higher in the venetoclax plus rituximab than with bendamustine plus rituximab.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study was terminated early at the time of the data review on 6 September 2017. The independent data monitoring committee recommended that the primary analysis be conducted at that time because the prespecified statistical boundaries for early stopping were crossed for progression-free survival on the basis of stratified log-rank tests. In a letter to the editor, Alexander et al questioned the validity of results when design stages are violated. In immunotherapy trials, progression-free survival curves often separated at later time, rather than as a constant process; this violates the key assumption of proportionality of hazard functions. When the study was terminated early, post hoc confirmatory analyses and evaluations of robustness of the statistical plan could be used; however, prespecified analyses are critical to reproducibility in trials that are meant to be practice-changing [5]. Second, complete response rates were lower when responses was assessed by the independent review committee than when assessed by the investigator. While this represented a certain degree of author bias, the overall results were similar and the effect of venetoclax plus rituximab remain significantly better than bendamustine plus rituximab.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current study demonstrated that venetoclax is safe and effective when combining with rituximab in the treating of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with or without 17p deletion who have received at least one prior therapy. The most common serious adverse event was neutropenia, correlated with tumor lysis syndrome. Careful monitoring, slow dose ramp-up, and adequate prophylaxis can mitigate some of the adverse effects.

—Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

CHICAGO – Use of the 21–tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score) allows nearly 70% of women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer to safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy, sparing them adverse effects and preventing overtreatment, TAILORx trial results show.

The findings, which were reported in the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, mark a major advance in precision medicine.

Susan London/MDedge News

Findings were similar across most subgroups. But analyses suggested that women aged 50 years and younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 did fare better when they received chemotherapy. “Though exploratory from a statistical perspective, this is a highly clinically relevant observation,” he maintained. “It suggests ... that chemotherapy should be spared with caution in this subgroup, after a careful discussion of potential benefits and risks in a shared decision process.”

In other findings, analyses of the trial’s nonrandomized groups confirmed excellent outcomes among women with a low recurrence score (defined as 0-10) given endocrine therapy alone, and at the other end of the spectrum, need for a more aggressive approach, including chemotherapy, among women with a high recurrence score (defined as 26-100).

Ultimately, application of the recurrence score allowed 69% of the entire trial population to skip chemotherapy: all of those women with a score of 0-10 (16% of the trial population), those older than 50 years with a score of 11-25 (45%), and those aged 50 years or younger with a score of 11-15 (8%).

“Although this trial was designed in 2003, it was designed with the goal of addressing one of the themes at this 2018 meeting, expanding the reach of precision medicine,” Dr. Sparano pointed out. “It also embodies the core values of ASCO: By providing the highest level of evidence, it can have a direct and immediate impact on the care of our patients.”

An ongoing companion phase 3 trial, RxPONDER, is assessing the benefit of applying the recurrence score in women who are similar but instead have node-positive disease.

Tailoring treatment: ‘not too much and not too little’

“These are very important data because this is the most common form of breast cancer in the United States and other developed countries, and the most challenging decision we make with these patients is whether or not to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with all of its side effects and with its potential benefits,” said ASCO Expert Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, FASCO. “The data provided here today from this massive NCI-sponsored trial show that the vast majority of women who have this test performed on their tumor can be told that they don’t need chemotherapy, and that can be said with tremendous confidence and reassurance.”

Susan London/MDedge News

“This is extraordinary data for breast cancer doctors and women who have breast cancer. It allows you to individualize treatment based on extraordinary science, which now has tremendous prospective validation,” he said. Overall, “women with breast cancer who are getting modern therapy are doing extraordinarily well, and this test shows us how to tailor that management so they get exactly the right amount of treatment – not too much and not too little.”

Study details

All of the women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer enrolled in TAILORx met National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Roughly 69% had an intermediate recurrence score (11-25) and were randomized. All of the 17% having a low recurrence score (0-10) were given only endocrine therapy, and all of the 14% with a high recurrence score (26-100) were given both adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

Of note, the recurrence scores used to define midrange were adjusted downward from those conventionally used to account for exclusion of patients with higher-risk HER2-positive disease and to minimize potential for undertreatment, Dr. Sparano explained. “I think you will see changes in the near future as to how Genomic Health reports their results.”

Among the women with midrange scores who were randomized, the hazard ratio for invasive disease-free survival with endocrine therapy alone compared with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (1.08) fell well within the predefined hazard ratio for noninferiority (1.322). The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy and 84.3% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The groups had similar rates of freedom from distant recurrence (94.5% vs. 95.0%; hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .48) and distant or locoregional recurrence (92.2% vs. 92.9%; hazard ratio, 1.11; P = .33), and similar overall survival (93.9% vs. 93.8%; hazard ratio for death, 0.99; P = .89).

In exploratory analyses, there was an interaction of age and recurrence score (P = .004) whereby women aged 50 or younger derived some benefit from chemotherapy if they had a recurrence score of 16-20 (9% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, including 2% fewer distant recurrences) or a recurrence score 21-25 (6% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, mainly distant recurrences). “This is information that could drive some younger women who have a recurrence score in this range to accept chemotherapy,” Dr. Sparano said.

The 9-year rate of distant recurrence averaged 5% among the women with midrange scores overall. It was just 3% among the women with a low recurrence score given endocrine therapy alone, but it was still 13% among the women with a high recurrence score despite receiving both endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The last finding may “indicate the need to explore potentially more effective therapies in this setting,” he proposed.

Dr. Sparano disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, and Merrimack; has stock or other ownership interests with Metastat; and receives research funding (institutional) from Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Merrimack. This study received funding primarily from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Additional support was provided by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Komen Foundation, and U.S. Postal Service Breast Cancer Stamp.

SOURCE: Sparano et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1

CHICAGO – Use of the 21–tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score) allows nearly 70% of women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer to safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy, sparing them adverse effects and preventing overtreatment, TAILORx trial results show.

The findings, which were reported in the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, mark a major advance in precision medicine.

Susan London/MDedge News

Findings were similar across most subgroups. But analyses suggested that women aged 50 years and younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 did fare better when they received chemotherapy. “Though exploratory from a statistical perspective, this is a highly clinically relevant observation,” he maintained. “It suggests ... that chemotherapy should be spared with caution in this subgroup, after a careful discussion of potential benefits and risks in a shared decision process.”

In other findings, analyses of the trial’s nonrandomized groups confirmed excellent outcomes among women with a low recurrence score (defined as 0-10) given endocrine therapy alone, and at the other end of the spectrum, need for a more aggressive approach, including chemotherapy, among women with a high recurrence score (defined as 26-100).

Ultimately, application of the recurrence score allowed 69% of the entire trial population to skip chemotherapy: all of those women with a score of 0-10 (16% of the trial population), those older than 50 years with a score of 11-25 (45%), and those aged 50 years or younger with a score of 11-15 (8%).

“Although this trial was designed in 2003, it was designed with the goal of addressing one of the themes at this 2018 meeting, expanding the reach of precision medicine,” Dr. Sparano pointed out. “It also embodies the core values of ASCO: By providing the highest level of evidence, it can have a direct and immediate impact on the care of our patients.”

An ongoing companion phase 3 trial, RxPONDER, is assessing the benefit of applying the recurrence score in women who are similar but instead have node-positive disease.

Tailoring treatment: ‘not too much and not too little’

“These are very important data because this is the most common form of breast cancer in the United States and other developed countries, and the most challenging decision we make with these patients is whether or not to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with all of its side effects and with its potential benefits,” said ASCO Expert Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, FASCO. “The data provided here today from this massive NCI-sponsored trial show that the vast majority of women who have this test performed on their tumor can be told that they don’t need chemotherapy, and that can be said with tremendous confidence and reassurance.”

Susan London/MDedge News

“This is extraordinary data for breast cancer doctors and women who have breast cancer. It allows you to individualize treatment based on extraordinary science, which now has tremendous prospective validation,” he said. Overall, “women with breast cancer who are getting modern therapy are doing extraordinarily well, and this test shows us how to tailor that management so they get exactly the right amount of treatment – not too much and not too little.”

Study details

All of the women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer enrolled in TAILORx met National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Roughly 69% had an intermediate recurrence score (11-25) and were randomized. All of the 17% having a low recurrence score (0-10) were given only endocrine therapy, and all of the 14% with a high recurrence score (26-100) were given both adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

Of note, the recurrence scores used to define midrange were adjusted downward from those conventionally used to account for exclusion of patients with higher-risk HER2-positive disease and to minimize potential for undertreatment, Dr. Sparano explained. “I think you will see changes in the near future as to how Genomic Health reports their results.”

Among the women with midrange scores who were randomized, the hazard ratio for invasive disease-free survival with endocrine therapy alone compared with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (1.08) fell well within the predefined hazard ratio for noninferiority (1.322). The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy and 84.3% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The groups had similar rates of freedom from distant recurrence (94.5% vs. 95.0%; hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .48) and distant or locoregional recurrence (92.2% vs. 92.9%; hazard ratio, 1.11; P = .33), and similar overall survival (93.9% vs. 93.8%; hazard ratio for death, 0.99; P = .89).

In exploratory analyses, there was an interaction of age and recurrence score (P = .004) whereby women aged 50 or younger derived some benefit from chemotherapy if they had a recurrence score of 16-20 (9% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, including 2% fewer distant recurrences) or a recurrence score 21-25 (6% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, mainly distant recurrences). “This is information that could drive some younger women who have a recurrence score in this range to accept chemotherapy,” Dr. Sparano said.

The 9-year rate of distant recurrence averaged 5% among the women with midrange scores overall. It was just 3% among the women with a low recurrence score given endocrine therapy alone, but it was still 13% among the women with a high recurrence score despite receiving both endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The last finding may “indicate the need to explore potentially more effective therapies in this setting,” he proposed.

Dr. Sparano disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, and Merrimack; has stock or other ownership interests with Metastat; and receives research funding (institutional) from Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Merrimack. This study received funding primarily from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Additional support was provided by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Komen Foundation, and U.S. Postal Service Breast Cancer Stamp.

SOURCE: Sparano et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1

CHICAGO – Use of the 21–tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score) allows nearly 70% of women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer to safely forgo adjuvant chemotherapy, sparing them adverse effects and preventing overtreatment, TAILORx trial results show.

The findings, which were reported in the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, mark a major advance in precision medicine.

Susan London/MDedge News

Findings were similar across most subgroups. But analyses suggested that women aged 50 years and younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 did fare better when they received chemotherapy. “Though exploratory from a statistical perspective, this is a highly clinically relevant observation,” he maintained. “It suggests ... that chemotherapy should be spared with caution in this subgroup, after a careful discussion of potential benefits and risks in a shared decision process.”

In other findings, analyses of the trial’s nonrandomized groups confirmed excellent outcomes among women with a low recurrence score (defined as 0-10) given endocrine therapy alone, and at the other end of the spectrum, need for a more aggressive approach, including chemotherapy, among women with a high recurrence score (defined as 26-100).

Ultimately, application of the recurrence score allowed 69% of the entire trial population to skip chemotherapy: all of those women with a score of 0-10 (16% of the trial population), those older than 50 years with a score of 11-25 (45%), and those aged 50 years or younger with a score of 11-15 (8%).

“Although this trial was designed in 2003, it was designed with the goal of addressing one of the themes at this 2018 meeting, expanding the reach of precision medicine,” Dr. Sparano pointed out. “It also embodies the core values of ASCO: By providing the highest level of evidence, it can have a direct and immediate impact on the care of our patients.”

An ongoing companion phase 3 trial, RxPONDER, is assessing the benefit of applying the recurrence score in women who are similar but instead have node-positive disease.

Tailoring treatment: ‘not too much and not too little’

“These are very important data because this is the most common form of breast cancer in the United States and other developed countries, and the most challenging decision we make with these patients is whether or not to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with all of its side effects and with its potential benefits,” said ASCO Expert Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, FASCO. “The data provided here today from this massive NCI-sponsored trial show that the vast majority of women who have this test performed on their tumor can be told that they don’t need chemotherapy, and that can be said with tremendous confidence and reassurance.”

Susan London/MDedge News

“This is extraordinary data for breast cancer doctors and women who have breast cancer. It allows you to individualize treatment based on extraordinary science, which now has tremendous prospective validation,” he said. Overall, “women with breast cancer who are getting modern therapy are doing extraordinarily well, and this test shows us how to tailor that management so they get exactly the right amount of treatment – not too much and not too little.”

Study details

All of the women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative early-stage breast cancer enrolled in TAILORx met National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Roughly 69% had an intermediate recurrence score (11-25) and were randomized. All of the 17% having a low recurrence score (0-10) were given only endocrine therapy, and all of the 14% with a high recurrence score (26-100) were given both adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

Of note, the recurrence scores used to define midrange were adjusted downward from those conventionally used to account for exclusion of patients with higher-risk HER2-positive disease and to minimize potential for undertreatment, Dr. Sparano explained. “I think you will see changes in the near future as to how Genomic Health reports their results.”

Among the women with midrange scores who were randomized, the hazard ratio for invasive disease-free survival with endocrine therapy alone compared with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (1.08) fell well within the predefined hazard ratio for noninferiority (1.322). The 9-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 83.3% with endocrine therapy and 84.3% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The groups had similar rates of freedom from distant recurrence (94.5% vs. 95.0%; hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .48) and distant or locoregional recurrence (92.2% vs. 92.9%; hazard ratio, 1.11; P = .33), and similar overall survival (93.9% vs. 93.8%; hazard ratio for death, 0.99; P = .89).

In exploratory analyses, there was an interaction of age and recurrence score (P = .004) whereby women aged 50 or younger derived some benefit from chemotherapy if they had a recurrence score of 16-20 (9% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, including 2% fewer distant recurrences) or a recurrence score 21-25 (6% fewer invasive disease–free survival events, mainly distant recurrences). “This is information that could drive some younger women who have a recurrence score in this range to accept chemotherapy,” Dr. Sparano said.

The 9-year rate of distant recurrence averaged 5% among the women with midrange scores overall. It was just 3% among the women with a low recurrence score given endocrine therapy alone, but it was still 13% among the women with a high recurrence score despite receiving both endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The last finding may “indicate the need to explore potentially more effective therapies in this setting,” he proposed.

Dr. Sparano disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, and Merrimack; has stock or other ownership interests with Metastat; and receives research funding (institutional) from Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Merrimack. This study received funding primarily from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Additional support was provided by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Komen Foundation, and U.S. Postal Service Breast Cancer Stamp.

SOURCE: Sparano et al. ASCO 2018 Abstract LBA1

The Diagnosis: Wells Syndrome

A punch biopsy taken from the perimeter of the lesion demonstrated mild spongiosis overlying a dense nodular to diffuse infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils, some involving underlying fat lobules (Figure, A and B). In some areas, eosinophilic degeneration of collagen bundles surrounded by a rim of histiocytes, "flame features," were observed (Figure C). The clinical and histological features were consistent with Wells syndrome (WS), also known as eosinophilic cellulitis. Given the localized mild nature of the disease, the patient was started on a midpotency topical corticosteroid.

Wells syndrome is a rare inflammatory condition characterized by clinical polymorphism, suggestive histologic findings, and a recurrent course.^1,2 This condition is especially rare in children.^3,4 Caputo et al1 described 7 variants in their case series of 19 patients: classic plaque-type variant (the most common clinical presentation in children); annular granuloma-like (the most common clinical presentation in adults); urticarialike; bullous; papulonodular; papulovesicular; and fixed drug eruption-like. Wells syndrome is thought to result from excess production of IL-5 in response to a hypersensitivity reaction to an exogenous or endogenous circulating antigen.^3,4 Increased levels of IL-5 enhance eosinophil accumulation in the skin, degranulation, and subsequent tissue destruction.^3,4 Reported triggers include insect bites, viral and bacterial infections, drug eruptions, recent vaccination, and paraphenylenediamine in henna tattoos.^3-7 Additionally, WS has been reported in the setting of gastrointestinal pathologies, such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis, and with asthma exacerbations.^8,9 However, in half of pediatric cases, no trigger can be identified.⁷

Clinically, WS presents with pruritic, mildly tender plaques.⁷ Lesions may be localized or diffuse and range from mild annular or circinate plaques with infiltrated borders to cellulitic-appearing lesions that are occasionally associated with bullae.^5,6 Patients often report prodromal symptoms of burning and pruritus.^5,6 Lesions rapidly progress over 2 to 3 days, pass through a blue grayish discoloration phase, and gradually resolve over 2 to 8 weeks.^5,6,10 Although patients generally heal without scarring, WS lesions have been described to resolve with atrophy and hyperpigmentation resembling morphea.^5-7 Additionally, patients typically experience a relapsing remitting course over months to years with eventual spontaneous resolution.^1,5 Patients also may experience systemic symptoms including fever, lymphadenopathy, and arthralgia, though they do not develop more widespread systemic manifestations.^2,3,7

Diagnosis of WS is based on clinicopathologic correlation. Histopathology of WS lesions demonstrates 3 phases. The acute phase demonstrates edema of the superficial and mid dermis with a dense dermal eosinophilic infiltrate.^1,6,10 The subacute granulomatous phase demonstrates flame figures in the dermis.^1,2,6,7,10 Flame figures consist of palisading groups of eosinophils and histiocytes around a core of degenerating basophilic collagen bundles associated with major basic protein.^1,2,6,7,10 Finally, in the resolution phase, eosinophils gradually disappear while histiocytes and giant cells persist, forming microgranulomas.^1,2,10 Notably, no vasculitis is observed and direct immunofluorescence is negative.^3,7 Although flame figures are suggestive of WS, they are not pathognomonic and are observed in other conditions including Churg-Strauss syndrome, parasitic and fungal infections, herpes gestationis, bullous pemphigoid, and follicular mucinosis.^2,5

Wells syndrome is a self-resolving and benign condition.^1,10 Physicians are recommended to gather a complete history including review of medications and vaccinations; a history of insect bites, infections, and asthma; laboratory workup consisting of a complete blood cell count with differential and stool samples for ova and parasites; and a skin biopsy if the diagnosis is unclear.⁷ Identification and treatment of underlying causes often results in resolution.⁶ Systemic corticosteroids frequently are used in both adult and pediatric patients, though practitioners should consider alternative treatments when recurrences occur to avoid steroid side effects.^3,6 Midpotency topical corticosteroids present a safe alternative to systemic corticosteroids in the pediatric population, especially in cases of localized WS without systemic symptoms.³ Other medications reported in the literature include cyclosporine, dapsone, antimalarial medications, and azathioprine.⁶ Despite appropriate therapy, patients and physicians should anticipate recurrence over months to years.^1,6

The Diagnosis: Wells Syndrome

A punch biopsy taken from the perimeter of the lesion demonstrated mild spongiosis overlying a dense nodular to diffuse infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils, some involving underlying fat lobules (Figure, A and B). In some areas, eosinophilic degeneration of collagen bundles surrounded by a rim of histiocytes, "flame features," were observed (Figure C). The clinical and histological features were consistent with Wells syndrome (WS), also known as eosinophilic cellulitis. Given the localized mild nature of the disease, the patient was started on a midpotency topical corticosteroid.

Wells syndrome is a rare inflammatory condition characterized by clinical polymorphism, suggestive histologic findings, and a recurrent course.^1,2 This condition is especially rare in children.^3,4 Caputo et al1 described 7 variants in their case series of 19 patients: classic plaque-type variant (the most common clinical presentation in children); annular granuloma-like (the most common clinical presentation in adults); urticarialike; bullous; papulonodular; papulovesicular; and fixed drug eruption-like. Wells syndrome is thought to result from excess production of IL-5 in response to a hypersensitivity reaction to an exogenous or endogenous circulating antigen.^3,4 Increased levels of IL-5 enhance eosinophil accumulation in the skin, degranulation, and subsequent tissue destruction.^3,4 Reported triggers include insect bites, viral and bacterial infections, drug eruptions, recent vaccination, and paraphenylenediamine in henna tattoos.^3-7 Additionally, WS has been reported in the setting of gastrointestinal pathologies, such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis, and with asthma exacerbations.^8,9 However, in half of pediatric cases, no trigger can be identified.⁷

Clinically, WS presents with pruritic, mildly tender plaques.⁷ Lesions may be localized or diffuse and range from mild annular or circinate plaques with infiltrated borders to cellulitic-appearing lesions that are occasionally associated with bullae.^5,6 Patients often report prodromal symptoms of burning and pruritus.^5,6 Lesions rapidly progress over 2 to 3 days, pass through a blue grayish discoloration phase, and gradually resolve over 2 to 8 weeks.^5,6,10 Although patients generally heal without scarring, WS lesions have been described to resolve with atrophy and hyperpigmentation resembling morphea.^5-7 Additionally, patients typically experience a relapsing remitting course over months to years with eventual spontaneous resolution.^1,5 Patients also may experience systemic symptoms including fever, lymphadenopathy, and arthralgia, though they do not develop more widespread systemic manifestations.^2,3,7

Diagnosis of WS is based on clinicopathologic correlation. Histopathology of WS lesions demonstrates 3 phases. The acute phase demonstrates edema of the superficial and mid dermis with a dense dermal eosinophilic infiltrate.^1,6,10 The subacute granulomatous phase demonstrates flame figures in the dermis.^1,2,6,7,10 Flame figures consist of palisading groups of eosinophils and histiocytes around a core of degenerating basophilic collagen bundles associated with major basic protein.^1,2,6,7,10 Finally, in the resolution phase, eosinophils gradually disappear while histiocytes and giant cells persist, forming microgranulomas.^1,2,10 Notably, no vasculitis is observed and direct immunofluorescence is negative.^3,7 Although flame figures are suggestive of WS, they are not pathognomonic and are observed in other conditions including Churg-Strauss syndrome, parasitic and fungal infections, herpes gestationis, bullous pemphigoid, and follicular mucinosis.^2,5

Wells syndrome is a self-resolving and benign condition.^1,10 Physicians are recommended to gather a complete history including review of medications and vaccinations; a history of insect bites, infections, and asthma; laboratory workup consisting of a complete blood cell count with differential and stool samples for ova and parasites; and a skin biopsy if the diagnosis is unclear.⁷ Identification and treatment of underlying causes often results in resolution.⁶ Systemic corticosteroids frequently are used in both adult and pediatric patients, though practitioners should consider alternative treatments when recurrences occur to avoid steroid side effects.^3,6 Midpotency topical corticosteroids present a safe alternative to systemic corticosteroids in the pediatric population, especially in cases of localized WS without systemic symptoms.³ Other medications reported in the literature include cyclosporine, dapsone, antimalarial medications, and azathioprine.⁶ Despite appropriate therapy, patients and physicians should anticipate recurrence over months to years.^1,6

The Diagnosis: Wells Syndrome

A punch biopsy taken from the perimeter of the lesion demonstrated mild spongiosis overlying a dense nodular to diffuse infiltrate of lymphocytes, neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils, some involving underlying fat lobules (Figure, A and B). In some areas, eosinophilic degeneration of collagen bundles surrounded by a rim of histiocytes, "flame features," were observed (Figure C). The clinical and histological features were consistent with Wells syndrome (WS), also known as eosinophilic cellulitis. Given the localized mild nature of the disease, the patient was started on a midpotency topical corticosteroid.

Wells syndrome is a rare inflammatory condition characterized by clinical polymorphism, suggestive histologic findings, and a recurrent course.^1,2 This condition is especially rare in children.^3,4 Caputo et al1 described 7 variants in their case series of 19 patients: classic plaque-type variant (the most common clinical presentation in children); annular granuloma-like (the most common clinical presentation in adults); urticarialike; bullous; papulonodular; papulovesicular; and fixed drug eruption-like. Wells syndrome is thought to result from excess production of IL-5 in response to a hypersensitivity reaction to an exogenous or endogenous circulating antigen.^3,4 Increased levels of IL-5 enhance eosinophil accumulation in the skin, degranulation, and subsequent tissue destruction.^3,4 Reported triggers include insect bites, viral and bacterial infections, drug eruptions, recent vaccination, and paraphenylenediamine in henna tattoos.^3-7 Additionally, WS has been reported in the setting of gastrointestinal pathologies, such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis, and with asthma exacerbations.^8,9 However, in half of pediatric cases, no trigger can be identified.⁷

Clinically, WS presents with pruritic, mildly tender plaques.⁷ Lesions may be localized or diffuse and range from mild annular or circinate plaques with infiltrated borders to cellulitic-appearing lesions that are occasionally associated with bullae.^5,6 Patients often report prodromal symptoms of burning and pruritus.^5,6 Lesions rapidly progress over 2 to 3 days, pass through a blue grayish discoloration phase, and gradually resolve over 2 to 8 weeks.^5,6,10 Although patients generally heal without scarring, WS lesions have been described to resolve with atrophy and hyperpigmentation resembling morphea.^5-7 Additionally, patients typically experience a relapsing remitting course over months to years with eventual spontaneous resolution.^1,5 Patients also may experience systemic symptoms including fever, lymphadenopathy, and arthralgia, though they do not develop more widespread systemic manifestations.^2,3,7

Diagnosis of WS is based on clinicopathologic correlation. Histopathology of WS lesions demonstrates 3 phases. The acute phase demonstrates edema of the superficial and mid dermis with a dense dermal eosinophilic infiltrate.^1,6,10 The subacute granulomatous phase demonstrates flame figures in the dermis.^1,2,6,7,10 Flame figures consist of palisading groups of eosinophils and histiocytes around a core of degenerating basophilic collagen bundles associated with major basic protein.^1,2,6,7,10 Finally, in the resolution phase, eosinophils gradually disappear while histiocytes and giant cells persist, forming microgranulomas.^1,2,10 Notably, no vasculitis is observed and direct immunofluorescence is negative.^3,7 Although flame figures are suggestive of WS, they are not pathognomonic and are observed in other conditions including Churg-Strauss syndrome, parasitic and fungal infections, herpes gestationis, bullous pemphigoid, and follicular mucinosis.^2,5

Wells syndrome is a self-resolving and benign condition.^1,10 Physicians are recommended to gather a complete history including review of medications and vaccinations; a history of insect bites, infections, and asthma; laboratory workup consisting of a complete blood cell count with differential and stool samples for ova and parasites; and a skin biopsy if the diagnosis is unclear.⁷ Identification and treatment of underlying causes often results in resolution.⁶ Systemic corticosteroids frequently are used in both adult and pediatric patients, though practitioners should consider alternative treatments when recurrences occur to avoid steroid side effects.^3,6 Midpotency topical corticosteroids present a safe alternative to systemic corticosteroids in the pediatric population, especially in cases of localized WS without systemic symptoms.³ Other medications reported in the literature include cyclosporine, dapsone, antimalarial medications, and azathioprine.⁶ Despite appropriate therapy, patients and physicians should anticipate recurrence over months to years.^1,6

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in June 2018.

In this edition of the Psychcast, Dr. Jeffrey Strawn discusses the use of antidepressants in children. Also, Dr. Renee Kohanski has a specific question that you can ask patients to open a big door.

In this edition of the Psychcast, Dr. Jeffrey Strawn discusses the use of antidepressants in children. Also, Dr. Renee Kohanski has a specific question that you can ask patients to open a big door.

In this edition of the Psychcast, Dr. Jeffrey Strawn discusses the use of antidepressants in children. Also, Dr. Renee Kohanski has a specific question that you can ask patients to open a big door.

A cardinal feature of Alzheimer disease is the way beta-amyloid—generally a metabolic waste product—clumps to form amyloid plaques. Now a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) study indicates that sleep may be an important link in that process. The researchers found that losing just 1 night of sleep led to an immediate increase in beta-amyloid.

Researchers used positron emission tomography to scan the brains of 20 healthy volunteers, aged 22 to 72 years, after a night of rested sleep and after being awake for 31 hours. They found beta-amyloid increases of about 5% after the sleep deprivation in the thalamus and hippocampus, regions especially vulnerable to damage in the early stages of Alzheimer disease, the researchers say. The study participants with larger increases also reported worse mood after sleep deprivation.

It is important to note, the researchers add, that the link between sleep disorders and Alzheimer risk is considered by many scientists to be bidirectional, since elevated beta-amyloid also may cause sleep disturbance.

It is unknown, the researchers say, whether the increase in beta-amyloid in the study participants would subside after a night of rest.

A cardinal feature of Alzheimer disease is the way beta-amyloid—generally a metabolic waste product—clumps to form amyloid plaques. Now a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) study indicates that sleep may be an important link in that process. The researchers found that losing just 1 night of sleep led to an immediate increase in beta-amyloid.

Researchers used positron emission tomography to scan the brains of 20 healthy volunteers, aged 22 to 72 years, after a night of rested sleep and after being awake for 31 hours. They found beta-amyloid increases of about 5% after the sleep deprivation in the thalamus and hippocampus, regions especially vulnerable to damage in the early stages of Alzheimer disease, the researchers say. The study participants with larger increases also reported worse mood after sleep deprivation.

It is important to note, the researchers add, that the link between sleep disorders and Alzheimer risk is considered by many scientists to be bidirectional, since elevated beta-amyloid also may cause sleep disturbance.

It is unknown, the researchers say, whether the increase in beta-amyloid in the study participants would subside after a night of rest.

A cardinal feature of Alzheimer disease is the way beta-amyloid—generally a metabolic waste product—clumps to form amyloid plaques. Now a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) study indicates that sleep may be an important link in that process. The researchers found that losing just 1 night of sleep led to an immediate increase in beta-amyloid.

Researchers used positron emission tomography to scan the brains of 20 healthy volunteers, aged 22 to 72 years, after a night of rested sleep and after being awake for 31 hours. They found beta-amyloid increases of about 5% after the sleep deprivation in the thalamus and hippocampus, regions especially vulnerable to damage in the early stages of Alzheimer disease, the researchers say. The study participants with larger increases also reported worse mood after sleep deprivation.

It is important to note, the researchers add, that the link between sleep disorders and Alzheimer risk is considered by many scientists to be bidirectional, since elevated beta-amyloid also may cause sleep disturbance.

It is unknown, the researchers say, whether the increase in beta-amyloid in the study participants would subside after a night of rest.

©ASCO/Rodney White 2018

CHICAGO—Acalabrutinib monotherapy was highly effective in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM) in a phase 2 study, investigator Roger Owen, MD, reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The BTK inhibitor was effective in both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory patients, with overall response rates for both groups in excess of 90%, and “amazing” major response rates—partial response or better—of approximately 80%, Dr Owen said.

Dr Owen, of the St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Leeds, UK, reported the findings as abstract 7501.*

Durations of response were excellent, according to Dr Owen, who also reported 2-year progression-free survival of 90% in treatment-naïve patients and 82% in relapsed/refractory patients.

The safety profile was favorable, with most adverse events of low grade, and a very limited number of dropouts due to adverse events, according to the investigator.

“I think this study clearly demonstrates the highly effective nature of acalabrutinib in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” Dr Owen stated.

 Acalabrutinib is a selective BTK inhibitor with minimal off-target activity, he said. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib also has demonstrated activity in Waldenström’s, but has been associated with toxicities such as atrial fibrillation and bleeding, he noted.

In this phase 2 acalabrutinib study (NCT02180724), which included 14 treatment-naïve and 92 relapsed/refractory patients, atrial fibrillation occurred in 5 patients. However, 4 of those cases were grade 1-2, and only one was grade 3, according to Dr Owen.

Investigators observed grade 3 hypertension in 3 relapsed/refractory patients.

Bleeding events occurred in more than half of patients, though only 3 of those events were grade 3, and no patient discontinued treatment due to a bleeding episode.

These efficacy results are “impressive,” and the fact that very few cardiac events were seen is important, said Bruce D. Cheson, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

Dr Cheson commented on the acalabrutinib results in his presentation during ASCO on non-chemotherapy treatments for lymphoid malignancies.

 “One can construct a non-chemo algorithm now for Waldenström’s, for patients who are MYD88 mutated, which is more than 90% of patients,” he said. “Right now ibrutinib, and perhaps in the future acalabrutinib, can be the initial therapy with or without rituximab based on the results of ongoing trials.”

However, single non-chemotherapy agents will not be sufficient to achieve cure of lymphoid malignancies, Dr Cheson added.

“We need to carefully develop rational combinations, identifying biomarkers for response, for resistance, for toxicity,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma BV. 

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract.

©ASCO/Rodney White 2018

CHICAGO—Acalabrutinib monotherapy was highly effective in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM) in a phase 2 study, investigator Roger Owen, MD, reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The BTK inhibitor was effective in both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory patients, with overall response rates for both groups in excess of 90%, and “amazing” major response rates—partial response or better—of approximately 80%, Dr Owen said.

Dr Owen, of the St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Leeds, UK, reported the findings as abstract 7501.*

Durations of response were excellent, according to Dr Owen, who also reported 2-year progression-free survival of 90% in treatment-naïve patients and 82% in relapsed/refractory patients.

The safety profile was favorable, with most adverse events of low grade, and a very limited number of dropouts due to adverse events, according to the investigator.

“I think this study clearly demonstrates the highly effective nature of acalabrutinib in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” Dr Owen stated.

 Acalabrutinib is a selective BTK inhibitor with minimal off-target activity, he said. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib also has demonstrated activity in Waldenström’s, but has been associated with toxicities such as atrial fibrillation and bleeding, he noted.

In this phase 2 acalabrutinib study (NCT02180724), which included 14 treatment-naïve and 92 relapsed/refractory patients, atrial fibrillation occurred in 5 patients. However, 4 of those cases were grade 1-2, and only one was grade 3, according to Dr Owen.

Investigators observed grade 3 hypertension in 3 relapsed/refractory patients.

Bleeding events occurred in more than half of patients, though only 3 of those events were grade 3, and no patient discontinued treatment due to a bleeding episode.

These efficacy results are “impressive,” and the fact that very few cardiac events were seen is important, said Bruce D. Cheson, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

Dr Cheson commented on the acalabrutinib results in his presentation during ASCO on non-chemotherapy treatments for lymphoid malignancies.

 “One can construct a non-chemo algorithm now for Waldenström’s, for patients who are MYD88 mutated, which is more than 90% of patients,” he said. “Right now ibrutinib, and perhaps in the future acalabrutinib, can be the initial therapy with or without rituximab based on the results of ongoing trials.”

However, single non-chemotherapy agents will not be sufficient to achieve cure of lymphoid malignancies, Dr Cheson added.

“We need to carefully develop rational combinations, identifying biomarkers for response, for resistance, for toxicity,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma BV. 

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract.

©ASCO/Rodney White 2018

CHICAGO—Acalabrutinib monotherapy was highly effective in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM) in a phase 2 study, investigator Roger Owen, MD, reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The BTK inhibitor was effective in both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory patients, with overall response rates for both groups in excess of 90%, and “amazing” major response rates—partial response or better—of approximately 80%, Dr Owen said.

Dr Owen, of the St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in Leeds, UK, reported the findings as abstract 7501.*

Durations of response were excellent, according to Dr Owen, who also reported 2-year progression-free survival of 90% in treatment-naïve patients and 82% in relapsed/refractory patients.

The safety profile was favorable, with most adverse events of low grade, and a very limited number of dropouts due to adverse events, according to the investigator.

“I think this study clearly demonstrates the highly effective nature of acalabrutinib in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” Dr Owen stated.

 Acalabrutinib is a selective BTK inhibitor with minimal off-target activity, he said. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib also has demonstrated activity in Waldenström’s, but has been associated with toxicities such as atrial fibrillation and bleeding, he noted.

In this phase 2 acalabrutinib study (NCT02180724), which included 14 treatment-naïve and 92 relapsed/refractory patients, atrial fibrillation occurred in 5 patients. However, 4 of those cases were grade 1-2, and only one was grade 3, according to Dr Owen.

Investigators observed grade 3 hypertension in 3 relapsed/refractory patients.

Bleeding events occurred in more than half of patients, though only 3 of those events were grade 3, and no patient discontinued treatment due to a bleeding episode.

These efficacy results are “impressive,” and the fact that very few cardiac events were seen is important, said Bruce D. Cheson, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

Dr Cheson commented on the acalabrutinib results in his presentation during ASCO on non-chemotherapy treatments for lymphoid malignancies.

 “One can construct a non-chemo algorithm now for Waldenström’s, for patients who are MYD88 mutated, which is more than 90% of patients,” he said. “Right now ibrutinib, and perhaps in the future acalabrutinib, can be the initial therapy with or without rituximab based on the results of ongoing trials.”

However, single non-chemotherapy agents will not be sufficient to achieve cure of lymphoid malignancies, Dr Cheson added.

“We need to carefully develop rational combinations, identifying biomarkers for response, for resistance, for toxicity,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma BV. 

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract.

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.