SAN DIEGO – An oral regimen of 420 mg ibrutinib achieved complete response in one-third of allogeneic stem cell recipients with chronic graft-vs.-host disease, David Miklos, MD, reported during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Fully 79% of patients in this open-label phase II study were considered responders when first assessed, 71% of responses lasted at least 5 months, and patients whose disease involved multiple organs generally showed responses in at least two organs, said Dr. Miklos of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ibrutinib is a first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. Cardiotoxicities have been a concern with ibrutinib, but were not observed in this cohort of 42 patients whose graft-vs.-host disease had not benefited from frontline therapy, Dr. Miklos said during a video interview. However, 52% of patients in this study developed other serious adverse events that are typical with ibrutinib, including pneumonia, septic shock, and fever, he said.

Chronic graft-vs.-host disease is the most common morbidity after allogeneic transplant. This is an “orphan disease” – there are no approved therapies for patients for whom corticosteroids are ineffective, Dr. Miklos noted. Based on these results, investigators are planning a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, he added.

Ibrutinib is jointly commercialized and developed by Janssen Biotech and by Pharmacyclics LLC, an Abbvie company. Dr. Miklos disclosed a consulting relationship, travel and expenses reimbursements, and research funding from Pharmacyclics.

SAN DIEGO – An oral regimen of 420 mg ibrutinib achieved complete response in one-third of allogeneic stem cell recipients with chronic graft-vs.-host disease, David Miklos, MD, reported during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Fully 79% of patients in this open-label phase II study were considered responders when first assessed, 71% of responses lasted at least 5 months, and patients whose disease involved multiple organs generally showed responses in at least two organs, said Dr. Miklos of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ibrutinib is a first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. Cardiotoxicities have been a concern with ibrutinib, but were not observed in this cohort of 42 patients whose graft-vs.-host disease had not benefited from frontline therapy, Dr. Miklos said during a video interview. However, 52% of patients in this study developed other serious adverse events that are typical with ibrutinib, including pneumonia, septic shock, and fever, he said.

Chronic graft-vs.-host disease is the most common morbidity after allogeneic transplant. This is an “orphan disease” – there are no approved therapies for patients for whom corticosteroids are ineffective, Dr. Miklos noted. Based on these results, investigators are planning a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, he added.

Ibrutinib is jointly commercialized and developed by Janssen Biotech and by Pharmacyclics LLC, an Abbvie company. Dr. Miklos disclosed a consulting relationship, travel and expenses reimbursements, and research funding from Pharmacyclics.

SAN DIEGO – An oral regimen of 420 mg ibrutinib achieved complete response in one-third of allogeneic stem cell recipients with chronic graft-vs.-host disease, David Miklos, MD, reported during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Fully 79% of patients in this open-label phase II study were considered responders when first assessed, 71% of responses lasted at least 5 months, and patients whose disease involved multiple organs generally showed responses in at least two organs, said Dr. Miklos of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ibrutinib is a first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. Cardiotoxicities have been a concern with ibrutinib, but were not observed in this cohort of 42 patients whose graft-vs.-host disease had not benefited from frontline therapy, Dr. Miklos said during a video interview. However, 52% of patients in this study developed other serious adverse events that are typical with ibrutinib, including pneumonia, septic shock, and fever, he said.

Chronic graft-vs.-host disease is the most common morbidity after allogeneic transplant. This is an “orphan disease” – there are no approved therapies for patients for whom corticosteroids are ineffective, Dr. Miklos noted. Based on these results, investigators are planning a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, he added.

Ibrutinib is jointly commercialized and developed by Janssen Biotech and by Pharmacyclics LLC, an Abbvie company. Dr. Miklos disclosed a consulting relationship, travel and expenses reimbursements, and research funding from Pharmacyclics.

HOUSTON – Despite enrollment difficulties that limited the study, a recently completed randomized trial comparing radiosurgery with open lobectomy to treat temporal lobe epilepsy offers some guidance for patients and their physicians.

Radiosurgery’s noninferiority to open lobectomy couldn’t be shown from the ROSE (Radiosurgery or Open Surgery for Epilepsy) trial, but language deficits were similar – and quite small – by 3 years after either procedure. Expected visual field deficits were similar in each procedure as well. However, since the trial didn’t reach its target enrollment, several primary outcome measures could not be fully assessed.

EyeMark/Thinkstock

Trial hypotheses and protocols

The ROSE trial aimed to show that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) would not be inferior to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) in achieving a seizure-free state by months 25-36 post procedure. The lag to response after radiosurgery is about 1 year; seizure freedom, defined as 12 consecutive months with no seizures, was assessed from months 25 to 36 of the study for the primary outcome of seizure freedom.

Investigators also hypothesized that fewer SRS patients would have significant reductions in measures of language function; further, they predicted that patients in both treatment arms would experience improvements in quality of life (QOL), and that QOL would improve as seizure freedom increased. Finally, the trial sought to show that SRS was cost effective, compared with ATL, with the marginal cost-utility ratio dropping below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Patients in the ATL arm received a standard “Spencer” ATL, with adequacy of resection assessed by MRI performed 3 months after surgery. An inadequate resection would have been classified as an adverse event, but all ATL patients had an adequate resection by study criteria, and all those whose histopathology was available (n = 20) had some hippocampal sclerosis.

Patients in the SRS arm had the amygdala and anterior 2 cm of the hippocampus, as well as the adjacent parahippocampal gyrus, irradiated. This resulted in a total treatment volume ranging from 5.5 to 7.5 cc. Patients received 4 Gy to the 50% isodose line, and treatment could involve an unlimited number of isocenters. The brain stem could receive no more than 10 Gy and the optic nerve and chiasm no more than 8 Gy. All treatment plans were cleared by the ROSE steering committee. The SRS patients had some variation in dose and volumes treated, but all were within the approved limits of the study.

Trial outcomes

As expected, the surgery arm achieved rapid seizure remission, while the SRS arm saw a steady increase in seizure-free numbers beginning at about 12 months after surgery. During study months 25-36, 78% of the ATL arm and 52% of the SRS arm were seizure free. “The null hypothesis of inferiority of SRS was not rejected,” said Mark Quigg, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Most patients in both groups had no or minimal changes in verbal memory, with no significant differences between the groups at 36 months after treatment.

QOL measures improved rapidly for those who received open surgery, and more slowly for those in the radiosurgery arm, a pattern “consistent with the known association between improved seizure control and quality of life,” said John Langfitt, PhD, a neuropsychologist and professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). However, the study was underpowered to show noninferiority of SRS for QOL measures at 36 months.

“There was a preliminary trend toward reduced health care use over time in the open surgery arm,” said Dr. Langfitt, again noting that the earlier seizure control achieved in surgery reduced health care utilization for that group sooner than for the SRS group. “The power may be limited by sample size and the tendency of utilization to be highly skewed,” he said.

Also as expected, the ATL arm saw early surgery-related adverse events such as scalp wound infections, subdural hematomas, and deep vein thromboses. These were infrequent overall. In contrast, the SRS group saw more cerebral edema–related adverse events during months 9-18, with headaches, new neurologic deficits, and transient seizure exacerbation.

All but three patients received postoperative visual field testing. Of the patients receiving SRS, 34% (10 of 29) had an upper superior quadrant visual field defect, as did 42% (11 of 26) of patients in the ATL arm.

Since the primary treating surgeon and neurologist could not be blinded as to study arm, another neurologist who was blinded was responsible for assessing the outcome measures, and also could identify adverse events. The trial’s steering committee was also blinded to ongoing outcomes.

Pilot study results

A pilot study had previously found that SRS was comparable to the efficacy that had been seen in larger, prospective trials of open surgery, with about two-thirds of patients seizure free at 36 months. Although most patients experienced brief exacerbation of auras or complex partial seizures after radiosurgery, visual field defects were similar to those experienced by patients undergoing standard ATL. Overall, neuropsychological outcomes for those undergoing SRS in the pilot were good, with a low incidence of declines in language and verbal memory function of the dominant hemisphere, and no short-term affective changes were seen. SRS patients who were seizure free after the procedure experienced a significant improvement in QOL.

The promising pilot results contrasted with the limited findings of the ROSE study. In regard to seizure freedom in ROSE, said Dr. Quigg, “The data appear to show that radiosurgery is inferior to ATL, but the low power of the study means that we cannot conclude this with sufficient confidence. Nor can we conclude that the two treatments are noninferior.”

The study was partially funded by Elekta, the manufacturer of the Gamma Knife radiosurgery device used in the study. Dr. Barbaro reported no other disclosures. Dr. Langfitt reported being a consultant for Monteris. Dr. Quigg reported being an investigator for several antiepileptic drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

HOUSTON – Despite enrollment difficulties that limited the study, a recently completed randomized trial comparing radiosurgery with open lobectomy to treat temporal lobe epilepsy offers some guidance for patients and their physicians.

Radiosurgery’s noninferiority to open lobectomy couldn’t be shown from the ROSE (Radiosurgery or Open Surgery for Epilepsy) trial, but language deficits were similar – and quite small – by 3 years after either procedure. Expected visual field deficits were similar in each procedure as well. However, since the trial didn’t reach its target enrollment, several primary outcome measures could not be fully assessed.

EyeMark/Thinkstock

Trial hypotheses and protocols

The ROSE trial aimed to show that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) would not be inferior to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) in achieving a seizure-free state by months 25-36 post procedure. The lag to response after radiosurgery is about 1 year; seizure freedom, defined as 12 consecutive months with no seizures, was assessed from months 25 to 36 of the study for the primary outcome of seizure freedom.

Investigators also hypothesized that fewer SRS patients would have significant reductions in measures of language function; further, they predicted that patients in both treatment arms would experience improvements in quality of life (QOL), and that QOL would improve as seizure freedom increased. Finally, the trial sought to show that SRS was cost effective, compared with ATL, with the marginal cost-utility ratio dropping below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Patients in the ATL arm received a standard “Spencer” ATL, with adequacy of resection assessed by MRI performed 3 months after surgery. An inadequate resection would have been classified as an adverse event, but all ATL patients had an adequate resection by study criteria, and all those whose histopathology was available (n = 20) had some hippocampal sclerosis.

Patients in the SRS arm had the amygdala and anterior 2 cm of the hippocampus, as well as the adjacent parahippocampal gyrus, irradiated. This resulted in a total treatment volume ranging from 5.5 to 7.5 cc. Patients received 4 Gy to the 50% isodose line, and treatment could involve an unlimited number of isocenters. The brain stem could receive no more than 10 Gy and the optic nerve and chiasm no more than 8 Gy. All treatment plans were cleared by the ROSE steering committee. The SRS patients had some variation in dose and volumes treated, but all were within the approved limits of the study.

Trial outcomes

As expected, the surgery arm achieved rapid seizure remission, while the SRS arm saw a steady increase in seizure-free numbers beginning at about 12 months after surgery. During study months 25-36, 78% of the ATL arm and 52% of the SRS arm were seizure free. “The null hypothesis of inferiority of SRS was not rejected,” said Mark Quigg, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Most patients in both groups had no or minimal changes in verbal memory, with no significant differences between the groups at 36 months after treatment.

QOL measures improved rapidly for those who received open surgery, and more slowly for those in the radiosurgery arm, a pattern “consistent with the known association between improved seizure control and quality of life,” said John Langfitt, PhD, a neuropsychologist and professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). However, the study was underpowered to show noninferiority of SRS for QOL measures at 36 months.

“There was a preliminary trend toward reduced health care use over time in the open surgery arm,” said Dr. Langfitt, again noting that the earlier seizure control achieved in surgery reduced health care utilization for that group sooner than for the SRS group. “The power may be limited by sample size and the tendency of utilization to be highly skewed,” he said.

Also as expected, the ATL arm saw early surgery-related adverse events such as scalp wound infections, subdural hematomas, and deep vein thromboses. These were infrequent overall. In contrast, the SRS group saw more cerebral edema–related adverse events during months 9-18, with headaches, new neurologic deficits, and transient seizure exacerbation.

All but three patients received postoperative visual field testing. Of the patients receiving SRS, 34% (10 of 29) had an upper superior quadrant visual field defect, as did 42% (11 of 26) of patients in the ATL arm.

Since the primary treating surgeon and neurologist could not be blinded as to study arm, another neurologist who was blinded was responsible for assessing the outcome measures, and also could identify adverse events. The trial’s steering committee was also blinded to ongoing outcomes.

Pilot study results

A pilot study had previously found that SRS was comparable to the efficacy that had been seen in larger, prospective trials of open surgery, with about two-thirds of patients seizure free at 36 months. Although most patients experienced brief exacerbation of auras or complex partial seizures after radiosurgery, visual field defects were similar to those experienced by patients undergoing standard ATL. Overall, neuropsychological outcomes for those undergoing SRS in the pilot were good, with a low incidence of declines in language and verbal memory function of the dominant hemisphere, and no short-term affective changes were seen. SRS patients who were seizure free after the procedure experienced a significant improvement in QOL.

The promising pilot results contrasted with the limited findings of the ROSE study. In regard to seizure freedom in ROSE, said Dr. Quigg, “The data appear to show that radiosurgery is inferior to ATL, but the low power of the study means that we cannot conclude this with sufficient confidence. Nor can we conclude that the two treatments are noninferior.”

The study was partially funded by Elekta, the manufacturer of the Gamma Knife radiosurgery device used in the study. Dr. Barbaro reported no other disclosures. Dr. Langfitt reported being a consultant for Monteris. Dr. Quigg reported being an investigator for several antiepileptic drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

HOUSTON – Despite enrollment difficulties that limited the study, a recently completed randomized trial comparing radiosurgery with open lobectomy to treat temporal lobe epilepsy offers some guidance for patients and their physicians.

Radiosurgery’s noninferiority to open lobectomy couldn’t be shown from the ROSE (Radiosurgery or Open Surgery for Epilepsy) trial, but language deficits were similar – and quite small – by 3 years after either procedure. Expected visual field deficits were similar in each procedure as well. However, since the trial didn’t reach its target enrollment, several primary outcome measures could not be fully assessed.

EyeMark/Thinkstock

Trial hypotheses and protocols

The ROSE trial aimed to show that stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) would not be inferior to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) in achieving a seizure-free state by months 25-36 post procedure. The lag to response after radiosurgery is about 1 year; seizure freedom, defined as 12 consecutive months with no seizures, was assessed from months 25 to 36 of the study for the primary outcome of seizure freedom.

Investigators also hypothesized that fewer SRS patients would have significant reductions in measures of language function; further, they predicted that patients in both treatment arms would experience improvements in quality of life (QOL), and that QOL would improve as seizure freedom increased. Finally, the trial sought to show that SRS was cost effective, compared with ATL, with the marginal cost-utility ratio dropping below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Patients in the ATL arm received a standard “Spencer” ATL, with adequacy of resection assessed by MRI performed 3 months after surgery. An inadequate resection would have been classified as an adverse event, but all ATL patients had an adequate resection by study criteria, and all those whose histopathology was available (n = 20) had some hippocampal sclerosis.

Patients in the SRS arm had the amygdala and anterior 2 cm of the hippocampus, as well as the adjacent parahippocampal gyrus, irradiated. This resulted in a total treatment volume ranging from 5.5 to 7.5 cc. Patients received 4 Gy to the 50% isodose line, and treatment could involve an unlimited number of isocenters. The brain stem could receive no more than 10 Gy and the optic nerve and chiasm no more than 8 Gy. All treatment plans were cleared by the ROSE steering committee. The SRS patients had some variation in dose and volumes treated, but all were within the approved limits of the study.

Trial outcomes

As expected, the surgery arm achieved rapid seizure remission, while the SRS arm saw a steady increase in seizure-free numbers beginning at about 12 months after surgery. During study months 25-36, 78% of the ATL arm and 52% of the SRS arm were seizure free. “The null hypothesis of inferiority of SRS was not rejected,” said Mark Quigg, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Most patients in both groups had no or minimal changes in verbal memory, with no significant differences between the groups at 36 months after treatment.

QOL measures improved rapidly for those who received open surgery, and more slowly for those in the radiosurgery arm, a pattern “consistent with the known association between improved seizure control and quality of life,” said John Langfitt, PhD, a neuropsychologist and professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). However, the study was underpowered to show noninferiority of SRS for QOL measures at 36 months.

“There was a preliminary trend toward reduced health care use over time in the open surgery arm,” said Dr. Langfitt, again noting that the earlier seizure control achieved in surgery reduced health care utilization for that group sooner than for the SRS group. “The power may be limited by sample size and the tendency of utilization to be highly skewed,” he said.

Also as expected, the ATL arm saw early surgery-related adverse events such as scalp wound infections, subdural hematomas, and deep vein thromboses. These were infrequent overall. In contrast, the SRS group saw more cerebral edema–related adverse events during months 9-18, with headaches, new neurologic deficits, and transient seizure exacerbation.

All but three patients received postoperative visual field testing. Of the patients receiving SRS, 34% (10 of 29) had an upper superior quadrant visual field defect, as did 42% (11 of 26) of patients in the ATL arm.

Since the primary treating surgeon and neurologist could not be blinded as to study arm, another neurologist who was blinded was responsible for assessing the outcome measures, and also could identify adverse events. The trial’s steering committee was also blinded to ongoing outcomes.

Pilot study results

A pilot study had previously found that SRS was comparable to the efficacy that had been seen in larger, prospective trials of open surgery, with about two-thirds of patients seizure free at 36 months. Although most patients experienced brief exacerbation of auras or complex partial seizures after radiosurgery, visual field defects were similar to those experienced by patients undergoing standard ATL. Overall, neuropsychological outcomes for those undergoing SRS in the pilot were good, with a low incidence of declines in language and verbal memory function of the dominant hemisphere, and no short-term affective changes were seen. SRS patients who were seizure free after the procedure experienced a significant improvement in QOL.

The promising pilot results contrasted with the limited findings of the ROSE study. In regard to seizure freedom in ROSE, said Dr. Quigg, “The data appear to show that radiosurgery is inferior to ATL, but the low power of the study means that we cannot conclude this with sufficient confidence. Nor can we conclude that the two treatments are noninferior.”

The study was partially funded by Elekta, the manufacturer of the Gamma Knife radiosurgery device used in the study. Dr. Barbaro reported no other disclosures. Dr. Langfitt reported being a consultant for Monteris. Dr. Quigg reported being an investigator for several antiepileptic drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

SAN DIEGO – Adding bortezomib (B) to melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) increased the frequency and depth of hematologic responses in a phase III trial of patients with previously untreated immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Rates of hematologic response after three treatment cycles were 79% for BMDex and 52% for MDex (P = .002), Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Very good partial responses accounted for most of this difference, with rates of 45% and 25%, respectively (P = .02). This first-in-kind trial establishes BMDex “as a novel standard of care in AL amyloidosis,” Dr. Kastritis concluded.

MDex is a standard regimen in intermediate-risk AL amyloidosis, while single-agent therapy with bortezomib yielded a median overall survival time of more than 5 years in one study, noted Dr. Kastritis of the University of Athens. In another matched case-control study, BMDex outperformed MDex based on overall response (69% vs. 51%; P = .01) and complete response (42% vs. 19%; P = .002).

Therefore, Dr. Kastritis and his associates in Europe and Australia randomly assigned 110 patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive either MDex (0.22 mg/kg melphalan plus 40 mg dexamethasone daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (MDex plus 1.3 mg/m² bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 during cycles one and two, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during subsequent cycles). Treatment continued through nine cycles of MDex or eight cycles of BMDex, or through cycle six if patients had either a complete response or a partial response plus an organ response. Patients stopped treatment after three cycles if they did not have at least a partial response.

After a median of five treatment cycles, BMDex and MDex led to similar rates of complete response (23% vs. 20%), partial response (19% and 17%), cardiac response (38% vs. 29%), and renal response (44% vs. 44%). Twenty-eight patients died, with no significant difference in overall survival between treatment arms. However, overall survival did favor BMDex (P = .03) among the 77 patients who were in cardiac stage II. Also, median time to second-line therapy was not reached for BMDex but was only 12 months with MDex (P less than .001).

The BMDex regimen was associated with higher rates of peripheral neuropathy (19% vs. 4% for MDex; P less than .001). Furthermore, three patients (1%) developed severe peripheral neuropathy on BMDex, while none did so on MDex. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with BMDex than with MDex, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (52% vs. 40%; P = .13). There were four cardiac deaths in the first 100 days of the trial, three in the BMDex arm and one in the MDex arm (P = .31).

The European Myeloma Network sponsored the trial. Dr. Kastritis disclosed ties to Genesis, Takeda, Janssen, and Amgen.

SAN DIEGO – Adding bortezomib (B) to melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) increased the frequency and depth of hematologic responses in a phase III trial of patients with previously untreated immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Rates of hematologic response after three treatment cycles were 79% for BMDex and 52% for MDex (P = .002), Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Very good partial responses accounted for most of this difference, with rates of 45% and 25%, respectively (P = .02). This first-in-kind trial establishes BMDex “as a novel standard of care in AL amyloidosis,” Dr. Kastritis concluded.

MDex is a standard regimen in intermediate-risk AL amyloidosis, while single-agent therapy with bortezomib yielded a median overall survival time of more than 5 years in one study, noted Dr. Kastritis of the University of Athens. In another matched case-control study, BMDex outperformed MDex based on overall response (69% vs. 51%; P = .01) and complete response (42% vs. 19%; P = .002).

Therefore, Dr. Kastritis and his associates in Europe and Australia randomly assigned 110 patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive either MDex (0.22 mg/kg melphalan plus 40 mg dexamethasone daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (MDex plus 1.3 mg/m² bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 during cycles one and two, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during subsequent cycles). Treatment continued through nine cycles of MDex or eight cycles of BMDex, or through cycle six if patients had either a complete response or a partial response plus an organ response. Patients stopped treatment after three cycles if they did not have at least a partial response.

After a median of five treatment cycles, BMDex and MDex led to similar rates of complete response (23% vs. 20%), partial response (19% and 17%), cardiac response (38% vs. 29%), and renal response (44% vs. 44%). Twenty-eight patients died, with no significant difference in overall survival between treatment arms. However, overall survival did favor BMDex (P = .03) among the 77 patients who were in cardiac stage II. Also, median time to second-line therapy was not reached for BMDex but was only 12 months with MDex (P less than .001).

The BMDex regimen was associated with higher rates of peripheral neuropathy (19% vs. 4% for MDex; P less than .001). Furthermore, three patients (1%) developed severe peripheral neuropathy on BMDex, while none did so on MDex. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with BMDex than with MDex, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (52% vs. 40%; P = .13). There were four cardiac deaths in the first 100 days of the trial, three in the BMDex arm and one in the MDex arm (P = .31).

The European Myeloma Network sponsored the trial. Dr. Kastritis disclosed ties to Genesis, Takeda, Janssen, and Amgen.

SAN DIEGO – Adding bortezomib (B) to melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) increased the frequency and depth of hematologic responses in a phase III trial of patients with previously untreated immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Rates of hematologic response after three treatment cycles were 79% for BMDex and 52% for MDex (P = .002), Efstathios Kastritis, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Very good partial responses accounted for most of this difference, with rates of 45% and 25%, respectively (P = .02). This first-in-kind trial establishes BMDex “as a novel standard of care in AL amyloidosis,” Dr. Kastritis concluded.

MDex is a standard regimen in intermediate-risk AL amyloidosis, while single-agent therapy with bortezomib yielded a median overall survival time of more than 5 years in one study, noted Dr. Kastritis of the University of Athens. In another matched case-control study, BMDex outperformed MDex based on overall response (69% vs. 51%; P = .01) and complete response (42% vs. 19%; P = .002).

Therefore, Dr. Kastritis and his associates in Europe and Australia randomly assigned 110 patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive either MDex (0.22 mg/kg melphalan plus 40 mg dexamethasone daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (MDex plus 1.3 mg/m² bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 during cycles one and two, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during subsequent cycles). Treatment continued through nine cycles of MDex or eight cycles of BMDex, or through cycle six if patients had either a complete response or a partial response plus an organ response. Patients stopped treatment after three cycles if they did not have at least a partial response.

After a median of five treatment cycles, BMDex and MDex led to similar rates of complete response (23% vs. 20%), partial response (19% and 17%), cardiac response (38% vs. 29%), and renal response (44% vs. 44%). Twenty-eight patients died, with no significant difference in overall survival between treatment arms. However, overall survival did favor BMDex (P = .03) among the 77 patients who were in cardiac stage II. Also, median time to second-line therapy was not reached for BMDex but was only 12 months with MDex (P less than .001).

The BMDex regimen was associated with higher rates of peripheral neuropathy (19% vs. 4% for MDex; P less than .001). Furthermore, three patients (1%) developed severe peripheral neuropathy on BMDex, while none did so on MDex. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with BMDex than with MDex, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (52% vs. 40%; P = .13). There were four cardiac deaths in the first 100 days of the trial, three in the BMDex arm and one in the MDex arm (P = .31).

The European Myeloma Network sponsored the trial. Dr. Kastritis disclosed ties to Genesis, Takeda, Janssen, and Amgen.

SAN DIEGO – Having less than three focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography) when beginning lenalidomide maintenance therapy predicted significantly higher rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Survival in this prospective study of 102 patients also correlated with FDG uptake that did not exceed the level of the liver (Deauville score less than 3), reported Elena Zamagni, MD, PhD, of Bologna (Italy) University. The findings highlight FDG-PET/CT as “a powerful prognostic marker for survival, both in terms of number and score of focal lesions,” she said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although FDG-PET/CT is “well recognized” for staging and evaluating prognosis in multiple myeloma, a “major inconsistency in methodology between studies” inspired the current analysis, Dr. Zamagni said. “Different groups have used different interpretation criteria and arbitrary cutoffs with very variable results, especially in terms of posttreatment and borderline cases,” she noted.

Therefore, researchers from eight participating centers evaluated FDG-PET/CT scans from 103 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were part of the randomized phase III EMN02 trial. Scans were performed at diagnosis, at the start of induction therapy, and just before patients started maintenance therapy with lenalidomide. Five nuclear medicine experts reviewed the scans in a blinded manner.

About 34% of patients had positive focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT at the start of maintenance, Dr. Zamagni said. After a median follow-up of 2 years, rates of progression-free survival were 84% in those with fewer than three focal lesions and 47% in those with three or more lesions (hazard ratio, 3.5; P = .01). Rates of overall survival followed the same trend at 98% and 68%, respectively (HR, 13.6; P = .0002).

Likewise, among patients whose FDG uptake did not exceed that of the liver, 2-year rates of progression-free and overall survival were 87% and 100%, compared with 69% and 45% in patients with new focal lesions or slightly, moderately, or markedly greater FDG uptake than the liver (Deauville scores of 4 and 5; P less than .001 for each comparison).

Normalization of FDG-PET/CT after induction also predicted improved survival, Dr. Zamagni said. Two-year progression-free survival rates were 85% among patients who had become PET-negative by the time they began maintenance, but were only 66% among patients who remained PET-positive (HR, 1.5; P less than .01). Rates of overall survival at 2 years were 98% among PET-negative patients and 87% among PET-positive patients (HR, 1.6; P = .03).

The study also confirmed the value of performing FDG-PET/CT at de novo myeloma diagnosis. Strikingly, only 20% of patients with baseline FDG-PET/CT evidence of extramedullary disease at this time point were alive and progression free 2 years later, compared with 81% of those without extramedullary disease (HR, 5.0; P = .001). Once again, the same trend emerged for Deauville scores – 99% of patients with scores of 3 or lower at diagnosis were alive 2 years later, compared with 83% of those who scored 4 or 5 (HR, 5.6; P = .03).

The EMN02 trial included 714 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who underwent induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD), followed by either standard-dose intensification therapy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) or high-dose intensification therapy with melphalan followed by single or double autologous stem cell transplantation. After that, patients either underwent consolidation therapy followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy or proceeded directly to maintenance. Among the study subgroup of 103 patients, median age was 58 years, 25% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 15% were ISS stage III.

“FDG-PET/CT is by now the preferred imaging technique for evaluating and monitoring response to therapy,” Dr. Zamagni concluded. She and her associates will use data from four other trials to further validate prognostic criteria and more precisely define cutoff points, she said.

Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna partially supported the study. Dr. Zamagni had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Having less than three focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography) when beginning lenalidomide maintenance therapy predicted significantly higher rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Survival in this prospective study of 102 patients also correlated with FDG uptake that did not exceed the level of the liver (Deauville score less than 3), reported Elena Zamagni, MD, PhD, of Bologna (Italy) University. The findings highlight FDG-PET/CT as “a powerful prognostic marker for survival, both in terms of number and score of focal lesions,” she said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although FDG-PET/CT is “well recognized” for staging and evaluating prognosis in multiple myeloma, a “major inconsistency in methodology between studies” inspired the current analysis, Dr. Zamagni said. “Different groups have used different interpretation criteria and arbitrary cutoffs with very variable results, especially in terms of posttreatment and borderline cases,” she noted.

Therefore, researchers from eight participating centers evaluated FDG-PET/CT scans from 103 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were part of the randomized phase III EMN02 trial. Scans were performed at diagnosis, at the start of induction therapy, and just before patients started maintenance therapy with lenalidomide. Five nuclear medicine experts reviewed the scans in a blinded manner.

About 34% of patients had positive focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT at the start of maintenance, Dr. Zamagni said. After a median follow-up of 2 years, rates of progression-free survival were 84% in those with fewer than three focal lesions and 47% in those with three or more lesions (hazard ratio, 3.5; P = .01). Rates of overall survival followed the same trend at 98% and 68%, respectively (HR, 13.6; P = .0002).

Likewise, among patients whose FDG uptake did not exceed that of the liver, 2-year rates of progression-free and overall survival were 87% and 100%, compared with 69% and 45% in patients with new focal lesions or slightly, moderately, or markedly greater FDG uptake than the liver (Deauville scores of 4 and 5; P less than .001 for each comparison).

Normalization of FDG-PET/CT after induction also predicted improved survival, Dr. Zamagni said. Two-year progression-free survival rates were 85% among patients who had become PET-negative by the time they began maintenance, but were only 66% among patients who remained PET-positive (HR, 1.5; P less than .01). Rates of overall survival at 2 years were 98% among PET-negative patients and 87% among PET-positive patients (HR, 1.6; P = .03).

The study also confirmed the value of performing FDG-PET/CT at de novo myeloma diagnosis. Strikingly, only 20% of patients with baseline FDG-PET/CT evidence of extramedullary disease at this time point were alive and progression free 2 years later, compared with 81% of those without extramedullary disease (HR, 5.0; P = .001). Once again, the same trend emerged for Deauville scores – 99% of patients with scores of 3 or lower at diagnosis were alive 2 years later, compared with 83% of those who scored 4 or 5 (HR, 5.6; P = .03).

The EMN02 trial included 714 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who underwent induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD), followed by either standard-dose intensification therapy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) or high-dose intensification therapy with melphalan followed by single or double autologous stem cell transplantation. After that, patients either underwent consolidation therapy followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy or proceeded directly to maintenance. Among the study subgroup of 103 patients, median age was 58 years, 25% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 15% were ISS stage III.

“FDG-PET/CT is by now the preferred imaging technique for evaluating and monitoring response to therapy,” Dr. Zamagni concluded. She and her associates will use data from four other trials to further validate prognostic criteria and more precisely define cutoff points, she said.

Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna partially supported the study. Dr. Zamagni had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Having less than three focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography) when beginning lenalidomide maintenance therapy predicted significantly higher rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Survival in this prospective study of 102 patients also correlated with FDG uptake that did not exceed the level of the liver (Deauville score less than 3), reported Elena Zamagni, MD, PhD, of Bologna (Italy) University. The findings highlight FDG-PET/CT as “a powerful prognostic marker for survival, both in terms of number and score of focal lesions,” she said during an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although FDG-PET/CT is “well recognized” for staging and evaluating prognosis in multiple myeloma, a “major inconsistency in methodology between studies” inspired the current analysis, Dr. Zamagni said. “Different groups have used different interpretation criteria and arbitrary cutoffs with very variable results, especially in terms of posttreatment and borderline cases,” she noted.

Therefore, researchers from eight participating centers evaluated FDG-PET/CT scans from 103 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were part of the randomized phase III EMN02 trial. Scans were performed at diagnosis, at the start of induction therapy, and just before patients started maintenance therapy with lenalidomide. Five nuclear medicine experts reviewed the scans in a blinded manner.

About 34% of patients had positive focal lesions on FDG-PET/CT at the start of maintenance, Dr. Zamagni said. After a median follow-up of 2 years, rates of progression-free survival were 84% in those with fewer than three focal lesions and 47% in those with three or more lesions (hazard ratio, 3.5; P = .01). Rates of overall survival followed the same trend at 98% and 68%, respectively (HR, 13.6; P = .0002).

Likewise, among patients whose FDG uptake did not exceed that of the liver, 2-year rates of progression-free and overall survival were 87% and 100%, compared with 69% and 45% in patients with new focal lesions or slightly, moderately, or markedly greater FDG uptake than the liver (Deauville scores of 4 and 5; P less than .001 for each comparison).

Normalization of FDG-PET/CT after induction also predicted improved survival, Dr. Zamagni said. Two-year progression-free survival rates were 85% among patients who had become PET-negative by the time they began maintenance, but were only 66% among patients who remained PET-positive (HR, 1.5; P less than .01). Rates of overall survival at 2 years were 98% among PET-negative patients and 87% among PET-positive patients (HR, 1.6; P = .03).

The study also confirmed the value of performing FDG-PET/CT at de novo myeloma diagnosis. Strikingly, only 20% of patients with baseline FDG-PET/CT evidence of extramedullary disease at this time point were alive and progression free 2 years later, compared with 81% of those without extramedullary disease (HR, 5.0; P = .001). Once again, the same trend emerged for Deauville scores – 99% of patients with scores of 3 or lower at diagnosis were alive 2 years later, compared with 83% of those who scored 4 or 5 (HR, 5.6; P = .03).

The EMN02 trial included 714 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who underwent induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD), followed by either standard-dose intensification therapy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) or high-dose intensification therapy with melphalan followed by single or double autologous stem cell transplantation. After that, patients either underwent consolidation therapy followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy or proceeded directly to maintenance. Among the study subgroup of 103 patients, median age was 58 years, 25% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 15% were ISS stage III.

“FDG-PET/CT is by now the preferred imaging technique for evaluating and monitoring response to therapy,” Dr. Zamagni concluded. She and her associates will use data from four other trials to further validate prognostic criteria and more precisely define cutoff points, she said.

Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna partially supported the study. Dr. Zamagni had no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

The fact that the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on health care (18%) than any other nation is old and depressing news (JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307[14]:1513-6). There may be some debate about whether the quality of the product we are getting is worth this outsized investment. But it is safe to assume that there must be some wastage in the system. Exactly how much of our health care dollar is going down the drain is unknown. And the thorny question of who is responsible for the leaks has escaped close scrutiny, probably because the answer is guaranteed to result in an uncomfortable and ugly circle of finger pointing. Is it the insurance companies, hospitals, the superspecialists, the drug companies, impatient patients, or those dastardly lawyers? Pediatricians are such small players on the health care stage that our contribution to the wastage must be minimal. Our patients are little people who are generally healthy. Most of us drive midsized cars and live in modest homes. We try to be careful users of the expensive diagnostic and therapeutic tools at our disposal. We don’t deserve a place on the list of likely suspects, do we?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

The fact that the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on health care (18%) than any other nation is old and depressing news (JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307[14]:1513-6). There may be some debate about whether the quality of the product we are getting is worth this outsized investment. But it is safe to assume that there must be some wastage in the system. Exactly how much of our health care dollar is going down the drain is unknown. And the thorny question of who is responsible for the leaks has escaped close scrutiny, probably because the answer is guaranteed to result in an uncomfortable and ugly circle of finger pointing. Is it the insurance companies, hospitals, the superspecialists, the drug companies, impatient patients, or those dastardly lawyers? Pediatricians are such small players on the health care stage that our contribution to the wastage must be minimal. Our patients are little people who are generally healthy. Most of us drive midsized cars and live in modest homes. We try to be careful users of the expensive diagnostic and therapeutic tools at our disposal. We don’t deserve a place on the list of likely suspects, do we?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

The fact that the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on health care (18%) than any other nation is old and depressing news (JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307[14]:1513-6). There may be some debate about whether the quality of the product we are getting is worth this outsized investment. But it is safe to assume that there must be some wastage in the system. Exactly how much of our health care dollar is going down the drain is unknown. And the thorny question of who is responsible for the leaks has escaped close scrutiny, probably because the answer is guaranteed to result in an uncomfortable and ugly circle of finger pointing. Is it the insurance companies, hospitals, the superspecialists, the drug companies, impatient patients, or those dastardly lawyers? Pediatricians are such small players on the health care stage that our contribution to the wastage must be minimal. Our patients are little people who are generally healthy. Most of us drive midsized cars and live in modest homes. We try to be careful users of the expensive diagnostic and therapeutic tools at our disposal. We don’t deserve a place on the list of likely suspects, do we?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

With a moistened index finger pointing skyward, I always have tried to remain alert to where the winds of change are blowing. But every now and then I miss a trend in child care, and that is the case with something known as “baby-led weaning.” Influenced by the questionable notion that there is a “natural” way of doing almost everything, the concept hinges on the belief that an infant will “tell” his mother when it is time to stop nursing and begin solids, aka complementary feeding.

At face value, the concept of allowing the baby to lead is a good one simply because of universality of biologic variation. Just as with the question of how much sleep a baby needs, I don’t think anyone (let alone clinicians) can give with assurance an answer that can easily be applied to all infants. There are just too many variables.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

With a moistened index finger pointing skyward, I always have tried to remain alert to where the winds of change are blowing. But every now and then I miss a trend in child care, and that is the case with something known as “baby-led weaning.” Influenced by the questionable notion that there is a “natural” way of doing almost everything, the concept hinges on the belief that an infant will “tell” his mother when it is time to stop nursing and begin solids, aka complementary feeding.

At face value, the concept of allowing the baby to lead is a good one simply because of universality of biologic variation. Just as with the question of how much sleep a baby needs, I don’t think anyone (let alone clinicians) can give with assurance an answer that can easily be applied to all infants. There are just too many variables.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

With a moistened index finger pointing skyward, I always have tried to remain alert to where the winds of change are blowing. But every now and then I miss a trend in child care, and that is the case with something known as “baby-led weaning.” Influenced by the questionable notion that there is a “natural” way of doing almost everything, the concept hinges on the belief that an infant will “tell” his mother when it is time to stop nursing and begin solids, aka complementary feeding.

At face value, the concept of allowing the baby to lead is a good one simply because of universality of biologic variation. Just as with the question of how much sleep a baby needs, I don’t think anyone (let alone clinicians) can give with assurance an answer that can easily be applied to all infants. There are just too many variables.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

SAN DIEGO – A chemotherapy-free induction regimen of ibrutinib and rituximab was well tolerated and achieved an overall response rate of 100% among patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to results of a small single-center phase II trial.

A total of 72% of patients had complete responses to induction, while 28% had partial responses, and 100% had complete responses to consolidation, reported Michael Wang, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The findings highlight a “window of opportunity” to effectively treat de novo MCL in young, fit patients while potentially sparing them from repeated cycles of intensive chemoimmunotherapy, the investigators noted.

Established treatments for MCL include eight cycles of rituximab–hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) alternating with rituximab–methotrexate–Ara-C (cytarabine). Median overall survival with this regimen exceeds 10 years, but during that decade, more than 6% of patients will develop myeloid neoplasms related to treatment, noted Dr. Wang of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For the study, patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed, untreated MCL underwent induction with continuous daily ibrutinib (560 mg), plus rituximab (375 mg/m²) administered weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3-12. Consolidation consisted of rituximab plus hyper-CVAD, alternating every 28 days with rituximab plus high-dose methotrexate–Ara-C. Complete responders to induction received four cycles of chemoimmunotherapy, while progressors and partial responders received chemoimmunotherapy for two cycles beyond the point of complete remission.

Among 36 evaluable patients, 28% had a partial response and the rest had complete responses to induction. Moreover, all 19 patients who completed consolidation had a complete response. During induction, the most common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and myalgia, nearly all of which were mild or moderate in severity. During consolidation, two patients developed severe neutropenia, one patient developed severe febrile neutropenia, and one developed a severe increase in liver enzymes. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“The toxicity after intensive immune-chemotherapy in shortened cycles [is] much improved compared to historical controls, but longer follow-up is needed,” the researchers wrote. “This unprecedented efficacy and safety may provide a window of opportunity for less chemoimmunotherapy needed for consolidation.”

Dr. Wang disclosed ties to Janssen, Onyx, BeiGene, Kite Pharma, Asana Biosciences, Juno Therapeutics, Acerta Pharma, and Celgene.

SAN DIEGO – A chemotherapy-free induction regimen of ibrutinib and rituximab was well tolerated and achieved an overall response rate of 100% among patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to results of a small single-center phase II trial.

A total of 72% of patients had complete responses to induction, while 28% had partial responses, and 100% had complete responses to consolidation, reported Michael Wang, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The findings highlight a “window of opportunity” to effectively treat de novo MCL in young, fit patients while potentially sparing them from repeated cycles of intensive chemoimmunotherapy, the investigators noted.

Established treatments for MCL include eight cycles of rituximab–hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) alternating with rituximab–methotrexate–Ara-C (cytarabine). Median overall survival with this regimen exceeds 10 years, but during that decade, more than 6% of patients will develop myeloid neoplasms related to treatment, noted Dr. Wang of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For the study, patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed, untreated MCL underwent induction with continuous daily ibrutinib (560 mg), plus rituximab (375 mg/m²) administered weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3-12. Consolidation consisted of rituximab plus hyper-CVAD, alternating every 28 days with rituximab plus high-dose methotrexate–Ara-C. Complete responders to induction received four cycles of chemoimmunotherapy, while progressors and partial responders received chemoimmunotherapy for two cycles beyond the point of complete remission.

Among 36 evaluable patients, 28% had a partial response and the rest had complete responses to induction. Moreover, all 19 patients who completed consolidation had a complete response. During induction, the most common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and myalgia, nearly all of which were mild or moderate in severity. During consolidation, two patients developed severe neutropenia, one patient developed severe febrile neutropenia, and one developed a severe increase in liver enzymes. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“The toxicity after intensive immune-chemotherapy in shortened cycles [is] much improved compared to historical controls, but longer follow-up is needed,” the researchers wrote. “This unprecedented efficacy and safety may provide a window of opportunity for less chemoimmunotherapy needed for consolidation.”

Dr. Wang disclosed ties to Janssen, Onyx, BeiGene, Kite Pharma, Asana Biosciences, Juno Therapeutics, Acerta Pharma, and Celgene.

SAN DIEGO – A chemotherapy-free induction regimen of ibrutinib and rituximab was well tolerated and achieved an overall response rate of 100% among patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to results of a small single-center phase II trial.

A total of 72% of patients had complete responses to induction, while 28% had partial responses, and 100% had complete responses to consolidation, reported Michael Wang, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The findings highlight a “window of opportunity” to effectively treat de novo MCL in young, fit patients while potentially sparing them from repeated cycles of intensive chemoimmunotherapy, the investigators noted.

Established treatments for MCL include eight cycles of rituximab–hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) alternating with rituximab–methotrexate–Ara-C (cytarabine). Median overall survival with this regimen exceeds 10 years, but during that decade, more than 6% of patients will develop myeloid neoplasms related to treatment, noted Dr. Wang of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

For the study, patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed, untreated MCL underwent induction with continuous daily ibrutinib (560 mg), plus rituximab (375 mg/m²) administered weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 3-12. Consolidation consisted of rituximab plus hyper-CVAD, alternating every 28 days with rituximab plus high-dose methotrexate–Ara-C. Complete responders to induction received four cycles of chemoimmunotherapy, while progressors and partial responders received chemoimmunotherapy for two cycles beyond the point of complete remission.

Among 36 evaluable patients, 28% had a partial response and the rest had complete responses to induction. Moreover, all 19 patients who completed consolidation had a complete response. During induction, the most common toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and myalgia, nearly all of which were mild or moderate in severity. During consolidation, two patients developed severe neutropenia, one patient developed severe febrile neutropenia, and one developed a severe increase in liver enzymes. There were no treatment-related deaths.

“The toxicity after intensive immune-chemotherapy in shortened cycles [is] much improved compared to historical controls, but longer follow-up is needed,” the researchers wrote. “This unprecedented efficacy and safety may provide a window of opportunity for less chemoimmunotherapy needed for consolidation.”

Dr. Wang disclosed ties to Janssen, Onyx, BeiGene, Kite Pharma, Asana Biosciences, Juno Therapeutics, Acerta Pharma, and Celgene.

Myth: Systemic steroids cause pustular psoriasis

The advent of biologic therapy for psoriasis has changed the landscape of treatments offered to patients. Nevertheless, systemic therapies still play an important role, according to the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis treatment guidelines, due to their oral route of administration and low cost compared to biologics. They are options for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapies or phototherapy. However, many dermatologists feel that it is inappropriate to prescribe oral steroids to psoriasis patients due to the risk for steroid-induced conversion to pustular psoriasis, the long-term side effects of steroids, and deterioration of psoriasis after withdrawal of steroids.

Pustular psoriasis appears clinically as white pustules (blisters of noninfectious pus) surrounded by red skin. The pus consists of white blood cells. There are a number of triggers in addition to systemic steroids, such as internal medications, irritating topical agents, overexposure to UV light, and pregnancy. Stopping an oral steroid abruptly can cause serious disease flares, fatigue, and joint pain.

Westphal et al described the case of a 70-year-old woman with palmoplantar psoriasis who was diagnosed with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis that was treated with corticotherapy by injection and then oral prednisone. She experienced improvement, but her symptoms worsened when she was in the process of reducing the prednisone dose. The dose was increased again, and the same worsening of symptoms was experienced when the dose was reduced. After completely abandoning oral steroid therapy, she developed a severe case of generalized pustular psoriasis that was treated with acitretin. This case illustrates the dangerous consequences of abruptly discontinuing oral steroids.

However, dermatologists may be using oral steroids for psoriasis more often than treatment guidelines suggest. In 2014, Al-Dabagh et al evaluated how frequently systemic corticosteroids are prescribed for psoriasis in the United States. The researchers reported, "Despite the absence or discouragement of systemic corticosteroids in psoriasis management guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are among the most common systemic treatments used for psoriasis." They found that systemic corticosteroids were prescribed at 650,000 of 21,020,000 psoriasis visits, of which 93% were visits to dermatologists. Prednisone was the most commonly prescribed systemic corticosteroid, followed by methylprednisolone and dexamethasone. To prevent rebound flares, systemic corticosteroids were prescribed with a topical corticosteroid in 45% of the visits in patients with psoriasis as the sole diagnosis. They concluded, "The striking contrast between the guidelines for psoriasis management and actual practice suggests that there is an acute need to better understand the use of systemic corticosteroids for psoriasis."

The benefits of systemic corticosteroids versus the frequency of adverse reactions should be weighed by dermatologists and patients to make evidence-based decisions about treatment. Patients should take oral steroids exactly as prescribed by physicians.

References

Al-Dabagh A, Al-Dabagh R, Davis SA, et al. Systemic corticosteroids are frequently prescribed for psoriasis. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18:195-199.

Delzell E. What you need to know about steroids. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/advance/what-you-need-to-know-about-steroids. Published September 2, 2015. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets CA, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 4. guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with traditional systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:451-485.

Pustular psoriasis. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/about-psoriasis/types/pustular. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Westphal DC, Schettini APM, de Souza PP, et al. Generalized pustular psoriasis induced by systemic steroid dose reduction. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91:664-666.

Expert Commentaries on next page

Expert Commentaries

When I was a resident, I was trained not to use systemic steroids in psoriasis patients for the reasons noted above, and I have faithfully followed these instructions 9 years into practice. However, I see many patients with severe psoriasis who are given systemic steroids by other physicians (ie, rheumatologists for psoriatic arthritis, pulmonologists for asthma). I often tell patients afterwards of the dangers of systemic steroids and to have them tell their other doctors to be cautious when giving another course of systemic steroids. However, I have yet to see a generalized pustular psoriasis outbreak or flare in psoriasis vulgaris after a course of systemic steroids. While I do not recommend systemic steroids for psoriasis patients since we have so many other systemic agents, I wonder if the risks that we were all trained about are really that high.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

How bad is it to give patients with psoriasis systemic steroids? Are psoriasis patients treated with systemic steroids likely to get a pustular flare? Are patients with psoriasis who suddenly stop their corticosteroids more likely to get a pustular flare than psoriasis patients who suddenly stop other systemic psoriasis treatments? I don't have the answers to these questions. My sense is that we have a lot of dogma and strong opinions but very little hard evidence to answer these questions.

I don't typically prescribe systemic steroids to psoriasis patients, but systemic steroids are widely used. Sometimes there are problems. I have seen patients who received systemic steroids for psoriasis and who went on to have a pustular flare, but it's possible the systemic steroid was given because those patients were headed toward the pustular flare already.

I once had a psoriasis patient who came to see me with a suddenly inflamed tender joint. Not knowing what to do, I called a rheumatologist to see the patient. The rheumatologist, too busy to work the patient in, told me to give the patient a 2-week prednisone taper. I did, and nothing untoward happened with the psoriasis. This one anecdote doesn't give me much confidence that systemic steroids are safe for psoriasis patients.

Clearly, long-term steroids cause a host of problems (eg, osteoporosis, diabetes). But I'm not sure that the dogma that systemic steroids should be avoided in patients with psoriasis is well supported. Systemic steroids are being widely used, and I don't see an epidemic of pustular flares.

Is it a mistake to give systemic steroids to psoriasis patients? I just don't know.
—Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)

Myth: Systemic steroids cause pustular psoriasis

The advent of biologic therapy for psoriasis has changed the landscape of treatments offered to patients. Nevertheless, systemic therapies still play an important role, according to the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis treatment guidelines, due to their oral route of administration and low cost compared to biologics. They are options for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapies or phototherapy. However, many dermatologists feel that it is inappropriate to prescribe oral steroids to psoriasis patients due to the risk for steroid-induced conversion to pustular psoriasis, the long-term side effects of steroids, and deterioration of psoriasis after withdrawal of steroids.

Pustular psoriasis appears clinically as white pustules (blisters of noninfectious pus) surrounded by red skin. The pus consists of white blood cells. There are a number of triggers in addition to systemic steroids, such as internal medications, irritating topical agents, overexposure to UV light, and pregnancy. Stopping an oral steroid abruptly can cause serious disease flares, fatigue, and joint pain.

Westphal et al described the case of a 70-year-old woman with palmoplantar psoriasis who was diagnosed with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis that was treated with corticotherapy by injection and then oral prednisone. She experienced improvement, but her symptoms worsened when she was in the process of reducing the prednisone dose. The dose was increased again, and the same worsening of symptoms was experienced when the dose was reduced. After completely abandoning oral steroid therapy, she developed a severe case of generalized pustular psoriasis that was treated with acitretin. This case illustrates the dangerous consequences of abruptly discontinuing oral steroids.

However, dermatologists may be using oral steroids for psoriasis more often than treatment guidelines suggest. In 2014, Al-Dabagh et al evaluated how frequently systemic corticosteroids are prescribed for psoriasis in the United States. The researchers reported, "Despite the absence or discouragement of systemic corticosteroids in psoriasis management guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are among the most common systemic treatments used for psoriasis." They found that systemic corticosteroids were prescribed at 650,000 of 21,020,000 psoriasis visits, of which 93% were visits to dermatologists. Prednisone was the most commonly prescribed systemic corticosteroid, followed by methylprednisolone and dexamethasone. To prevent rebound flares, systemic corticosteroids were prescribed with a topical corticosteroid in 45% of the visits in patients with psoriasis as the sole diagnosis. They concluded, "The striking contrast between the guidelines for psoriasis management and actual practice suggests that there is an acute need to better understand the use of systemic corticosteroids for psoriasis."

The benefits of systemic corticosteroids versus the frequency of adverse reactions should be weighed by dermatologists and patients to make evidence-based decisions about treatment. Patients should take oral steroids exactly as prescribed by physicians.

References

Al-Dabagh A, Al-Dabagh R, Davis SA, et al. Systemic corticosteroids are frequently prescribed for psoriasis. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18:195-199.

Delzell E. What you need to know about steroids. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/advance/what-you-need-to-know-about-steroids. Published September 2, 2015. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets CA, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 4. guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with traditional systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:451-485.

Pustular psoriasis. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/about-psoriasis/types/pustular. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Westphal DC, Schettini APM, de Souza PP, et al. Generalized pustular psoriasis induced by systemic steroid dose reduction. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91:664-666.

Expert Commentaries on next page

Expert Commentaries

When I was a resident, I was trained not to use systemic steroids in psoriasis patients for the reasons noted above, and I have faithfully followed these instructions 9 years into practice. However, I see many patients with severe psoriasis who are given systemic steroids by other physicians (ie, rheumatologists for psoriatic arthritis, pulmonologists for asthma). I often tell patients afterwards of the dangers of systemic steroids and to have them tell their other doctors to be cautious when giving another course of systemic steroids. However, I have yet to see a generalized pustular psoriasis outbreak or flare in psoriasis vulgaris after a course of systemic steroids. While I do not recommend systemic steroids for psoriasis patients since we have so many other systemic agents, I wonder if the risks that we were all trained about are really that high.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

How bad is it to give patients with psoriasis systemic steroids? Are psoriasis patients treated with systemic steroids likely to get a pustular flare? Are patients with psoriasis who suddenly stop their corticosteroids more likely to get a pustular flare than psoriasis patients who suddenly stop other systemic psoriasis treatments? I don't have the answers to these questions. My sense is that we have a lot of dogma and strong opinions but very little hard evidence to answer these questions.

I don't typically prescribe systemic steroids to psoriasis patients, but systemic steroids are widely used. Sometimes there are problems. I have seen patients who received systemic steroids for psoriasis and who went on to have a pustular flare, but it's possible the systemic steroid was given because those patients were headed toward the pustular flare already.

I once had a psoriasis patient who came to see me with a suddenly inflamed tender joint. Not knowing what to do, I called a rheumatologist to see the patient. The rheumatologist, too busy to work the patient in, told me to give the patient a 2-week prednisone taper. I did, and nothing untoward happened with the psoriasis. This one anecdote doesn't give me much confidence that systemic steroids are safe for psoriasis patients.

Clearly, long-term steroids cause a host of problems (eg, osteoporosis, diabetes). But I'm not sure that the dogma that systemic steroids should be avoided in patients with psoriasis is well supported. Systemic steroids are being widely used, and I don't see an epidemic of pustular flares.

Is it a mistake to give systemic steroids to psoriasis patients? I just don't know.
—Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)

Myth: Systemic steroids cause pustular psoriasis

The advent of biologic therapy for psoriasis has changed the landscape of treatments offered to patients. Nevertheless, systemic therapies still play an important role, according to the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis treatment guidelines, due to their oral route of administration and low cost compared to biologics. They are options for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical therapies or phototherapy. However, many dermatologists feel that it is inappropriate to prescribe oral steroids to psoriasis patients due to the risk for steroid-induced conversion to pustular psoriasis, the long-term side effects of steroids, and deterioration of psoriasis after withdrawal of steroids.

Pustular psoriasis appears clinically as white pustules (blisters of noninfectious pus) surrounded by red skin. The pus consists of white blood cells. There are a number of triggers in addition to systemic steroids, such as internal medications, irritating topical agents, overexposure to UV light, and pregnancy. Stopping an oral steroid abruptly can cause serious disease flares, fatigue, and joint pain.

Westphal et al described the case of a 70-year-old woman with palmoplantar psoriasis who was diagnosed with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis that was treated with corticotherapy by injection and then oral prednisone. She experienced improvement, but her symptoms worsened when she was in the process of reducing the prednisone dose. The dose was increased again, and the same worsening of symptoms was experienced when the dose was reduced. After completely abandoning oral steroid therapy, she developed a severe case of generalized pustular psoriasis that was treated with acitretin. This case illustrates the dangerous consequences of abruptly discontinuing oral steroids.

However, dermatologists may be using oral steroids for psoriasis more often than treatment guidelines suggest. In 2014, Al-Dabagh et al evaluated how frequently systemic corticosteroids are prescribed for psoriasis in the United States. The researchers reported, "Despite the absence or discouragement of systemic corticosteroids in psoriasis management guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are among the most common systemic treatments used for psoriasis." They found that systemic corticosteroids were prescribed at 650,000 of 21,020,000 psoriasis visits, of which 93% were visits to dermatologists. Prednisone was the most commonly prescribed systemic corticosteroid, followed by methylprednisolone and dexamethasone. To prevent rebound flares, systemic corticosteroids were prescribed with a topical corticosteroid in 45% of the visits in patients with psoriasis as the sole diagnosis. They concluded, "The striking contrast between the guidelines for psoriasis management and actual practice suggests that there is an acute need to better understand the use of systemic corticosteroids for psoriasis."

The benefits of systemic corticosteroids versus the frequency of adverse reactions should be weighed by dermatologists and patients to make evidence-based decisions about treatment. Patients should take oral steroids exactly as prescribed by physicians.

References

Al-Dabagh A, Al-Dabagh R, Davis SA, et al. Systemic corticosteroids are frequently prescribed for psoriasis. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18:195-199.

Delzell E. What you need to know about steroids. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/advance/what-you-need-to-know-about-steroids. Published September 2, 2015. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets CA, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 4. guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with traditional systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:451-485.

Pustular psoriasis. National Psoriasis Foundation website. https://www.psoriasis.org/about-psoriasis/types/pustular. Accessed January 13, 2017.

Westphal DC, Schettini APM, de Souza PP, et al. Generalized pustular psoriasis induced by systemic steroid dose reduction. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91:664-666.

Expert Commentaries on next page

Expert Commentaries

When I was a resident, I was trained not to use systemic steroids in psoriasis patients for the reasons noted above, and I have faithfully followed these instructions 9 years into practice. However, I see many patients with severe psoriasis who are given systemic steroids by other physicians (ie, rheumatologists for psoriatic arthritis, pulmonologists for asthma). I often tell patients afterwards of the dangers of systemic steroids and to have them tell their other doctors to be cautious when giving another course of systemic steroids. However, I have yet to see a generalized pustular psoriasis outbreak or flare in psoriasis vulgaris after a course of systemic steroids. While I do not recommend systemic steroids for psoriasis patients since we have so many other systemic agents, I wonder if the risks that we were all trained about are really that high.

—Jashin J. Wu, MD (Los Angeles, California)

How bad is it to give patients with psoriasis systemic steroids? Are psoriasis patients treated with systemic steroids likely to get a pustular flare? Are patients with psoriasis who suddenly stop their corticosteroids more likely to get a pustular flare than psoriasis patients who suddenly stop other systemic psoriasis treatments? I don't have the answers to these questions. My sense is that we have a lot of dogma and strong opinions but very little hard evidence to answer these questions.

I don't typically prescribe systemic steroids to psoriasis patients, but systemic steroids are widely used. Sometimes there are problems. I have seen patients who received systemic steroids for psoriasis and who went on to have a pustular flare, but it's possible the systemic steroid was given because those patients were headed toward the pustular flare already.

I once had a psoriasis patient who came to see me with a suddenly inflamed tender joint. Not knowing what to do, I called a rheumatologist to see the patient. The rheumatologist, too busy to work the patient in, told me to give the patient a 2-week prednisone taper. I did, and nothing untoward happened with the psoriasis. This one anecdote doesn't give me much confidence that systemic steroids are safe for psoriasis patients.

Clearly, long-term steroids cause a host of problems (eg, osteoporosis, diabetes). But I'm not sure that the dogma that systemic steroids should be avoided in patients with psoriasis is well supported. Systemic steroids are being widely used, and I don't see an epidemic of pustular flares.

Is it a mistake to give systemic steroids to psoriasis patients? I just don't know.
—Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs MRSA Prevention Initiative, implemented in October 2007, has shown progress at limiting health care–associated infections of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus through 2011 and 2012.

A new report published in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Infection Control tracks continued declines in infection through September 2015.

©Photo Researchers/NHGRI

[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs MRSA Prevention Initiative, implemented in October 2007, has shown progress at limiting health care–associated infections of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus through 2011 and 2012.

A new report published in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Infection Control tracks continued declines in infection through September 2015.

©Photo Researchers/NHGRI

[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs MRSA Prevention Initiative, implemented in October 2007, has shown progress at limiting health care–associated infections of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus through 2011 and 2012.

A new report published in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Infection Control tracks continued declines in infection through September 2015.

©Photo Researchers/NHGRI

[email protected]

Clinical question: Does emergency department management of patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) follow current guidelines?

Background: Chemotherapy-related FN is an oncologic emergency frequently leading to hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. Familiarity with FN guidelines allows risk stratification for inpatient versus outpatient therapy.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large, urban, tertiary-care academic hospital.

Synopsis: Of 173 patient visits, 25% were risk stratified as eligible for outpatient treatment and 75% as inpatient care. All patient care was assessed for guideline concordance at the time of ED disposition and therapy.

Primary outcome analysis demonstrated management was guideline discordant in 98% of low-risk patients versus 7% of high-risk patients. Secondary 30-day clinical outcomes showed high-risk patients were more likely to have positive blood cultures (54%), sepsis-induced hypotension (9.3%), and death (5.4%). Seventeen percent of all patients who received IV antibiotics were prescribed vancomycin without guideline support.

Bottom line: Low-risk FN patients in the ED received more aggressive treatment than recommended. Further research is needed to strategize means of better aligning FN management with standards of care.

Citation: Baugh CW, Wang TJ, Caterino JM, et al. ED management of patients with febrile neutropenia: guideline concordant or overly aggressive [published online ahead of print Sept. 9, 2016]? Acad Emerg Med. doi: 10.1111/acem.13079.

Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.

Clinical question: Does emergency department management of patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) follow current guidelines?

Background: Chemotherapy-related FN is an oncologic emergency frequently leading to hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. Familiarity with FN guidelines allows risk stratification for inpatient versus outpatient therapy.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large, urban, tertiary-care academic hospital.

Synopsis: Of 173 patient visits, 25% were risk stratified as eligible for outpatient treatment and 75% as inpatient care. All patient care was assessed for guideline concordance at the time of ED disposition and therapy.

Primary outcome analysis demonstrated management was guideline discordant in 98% of low-risk patients versus 7% of high-risk patients. Secondary 30-day clinical outcomes showed high-risk patients were more likely to have positive blood cultures (54%), sepsis-induced hypotension (9.3%), and death (5.4%). Seventeen percent of all patients who received IV antibiotics were prescribed vancomycin without guideline support.

Bottom line: Low-risk FN patients in the ED received more aggressive treatment than recommended. Further research is needed to strategize means of better aligning FN management with standards of care.

Citation: Baugh CW, Wang TJ, Caterino JM, et al. ED management of patients with febrile neutropenia: guideline concordant or overly aggressive [published online ahead of print Sept. 9, 2016]? Acad Emerg Med. doi: 10.1111/acem.13079.

Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.

Clinical question: Does emergency department management of patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) follow current guidelines?

Background: Chemotherapy-related FN is an oncologic emergency frequently leading to hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. Familiarity with FN guidelines allows risk stratification for inpatient versus outpatient therapy.

Study design: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Large, urban, tertiary-care academic hospital.

Synopsis: Of 173 patient visits, 25% were risk stratified as eligible for outpatient treatment and 75% as inpatient care. All patient care was assessed for guideline concordance at the time of ED disposition and therapy.

Primary outcome analysis demonstrated management was guideline discordant in 98% of low-risk patients versus 7% of high-risk patients. Secondary 30-day clinical outcomes showed high-risk patients were more likely to have positive blood cultures (54%), sepsis-induced hypotension (9.3%), and death (5.4%). Seventeen percent of all patients who received IV antibiotics were prescribed vancomycin without guideline support.

Bottom line: Low-risk FN patients in the ED received more aggressive treatment than recommended. Further research is needed to strategize means of better aligning FN management with standards of care.

Citation: Baugh CW, Wang TJ, Caterino JM, et al. ED management of patients with febrile neutropenia: guideline concordant or overly aggressive [published online ahead of print Sept. 9, 2016]? Acad Emerg Med. doi: 10.1111/acem.13079.

Dr. Zuleta is an assistant professor and associate program director of the Jackson Memorial/University of Miami Internal Medicine residency training program and the site director of the program at University of Miami Hospital.