Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: The addition of bortezomib to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) confers a survival advantage over R-CHOP in patients with activated B-cell (ABC)- and molecular high grade (MHG)-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Bortezomib-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P  =  .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P  =  .011) groups, and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P  =  .032). The germinal center B-cell (GCB) group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Study details: This updated retrospective analysis of the phase 3 REMoDL-B study included 801 adult patients with DLBCL (ABC, MHG, or GCB subtype) who were randomly assigned to receive 2-6 cycles of R-CHOP (n = 407) or bortezomib-R-CHOP (n = 394) after one cycle of R-CHOP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from Janssen-Cilag and Cancer Research UK. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Janssen.

Source: Davies AJ et al. Differential efficacy from the addition of bortezomib to r-chop in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma according to the molecular subgroup in the REMoDL-B study with a 5-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00033

Key clinical point: The addition of bortezomib to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) confers a survival advantage over R-CHOP in patients with activated B-cell (ABC)- and molecular high grade (MHG)-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Bortezomib-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P  =  .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P  =  .011) groups, and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P  =  .032). The germinal center B-cell (GCB) group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Study details: This updated retrospective analysis of the phase 3 REMoDL-B study included 801 adult patients with DLBCL (ABC, MHG, or GCB subtype) who were randomly assigned to receive 2-6 cycles of R-CHOP (n = 407) or bortezomib-R-CHOP (n = 394) after one cycle of R-CHOP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from Janssen-Cilag and Cancer Research UK. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Janssen.

Source: Davies AJ et al. Differential efficacy from the addition of bortezomib to r-chop in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma according to the molecular subgroup in the REMoDL-B study with a 5-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00033

Key clinical point: The addition of bortezomib to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) confers a survival advantage over R-CHOP in patients with activated B-cell (ABC)- and molecular high grade (MHG)-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Bortezomib-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P  =  .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P  =  .011) groups, and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P  =  .032). The germinal center B-cell (GCB) group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Study details: This updated retrospective analysis of the phase 3 REMoDL-B study included 801 adult patients with DLBCL (ABC, MHG, or GCB subtype) who were randomly assigned to receive 2-6 cycles of R-CHOP (n = 407) or bortezomib-R-CHOP (n = 394) after one cycle of R-CHOP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from Janssen-Cilag and Cancer Research UK. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Janssen.

Source: Davies AJ et al. Differential efficacy from the addition of bortezomib to r-chop in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma according to the molecular subgroup in the REMoDL-B study with a 5-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.00033

Key clinical point: Compared with idelalisib+rituximab (R-idela), ibrutinib significantly prolonged survival and was associated with lower treatment discontinuation rates in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in routine practice.

Major finding: The ibrutinib vs R-idela group had significantly longer median progression-free survival (40.5 vs 22.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .001) and overall survival (54.4 vs 37.7 months; HR 0.73; P  =  .040) and lower rates of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity (22.5% vs 39.8%) and CLL progression (11.1% vs 27.5%).

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 415 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry who received R-idela (n = 171) or ibrutinib (n = 244).

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, and Programme Cooperation, Research Area ONCO. Some authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Spacek M et al for the Czech CLL Study Group. Idelalisib plus rituximab versus ibrutinib in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: A real-world analysis from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry (CLLEAR). Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18736

Key clinical point: Compared with idelalisib+rituximab (R-idela), ibrutinib significantly prolonged survival and was associated with lower treatment discontinuation rates in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in routine practice.

Major finding: The ibrutinib vs R-idela group had significantly longer median progression-free survival (40.5 vs 22.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .001) and overall survival (54.4 vs 37.7 months; HR 0.73; P  =  .040) and lower rates of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity (22.5% vs 39.8%) and CLL progression (11.1% vs 27.5%).

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 415 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry who received R-idela (n = 171) or ibrutinib (n = 244).

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, and Programme Cooperation, Research Area ONCO. Some authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Spacek M et al for the Czech CLL Study Group. Idelalisib plus rituximab versus ibrutinib in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: A real-world analysis from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry (CLLEAR). Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18736

Key clinical point: Compared with idelalisib+rituximab (R-idela), ibrutinib significantly prolonged survival and was associated with lower treatment discontinuation rates in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in routine practice.

Major finding: The ibrutinib vs R-idela group had significantly longer median progression-free survival (40.5 vs 22.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .001) and overall survival (54.4 vs 37.7 months; HR 0.73; P  =  .040) and lower rates of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity (22.5% vs 39.8%) and CLL progression (11.1% vs 27.5%).

Study details: This real-world retrospective study included 415 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry who received R-idela (n = 171) or ibrutinib (n = 244).

Disclosures: This study was funded by grants from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, and Programme Cooperation, Research Area ONCO. Some authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Spacek M et al for the Czech CLL Study Group. Idelalisib plus rituximab versus ibrutinib in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: A real-world analysis from the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Registry (CLLEAR). Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18736

Key clinical point: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy after lymphodepletion led to similar survival outcomes and toxicity rates in patients with nodal (ND) and extra nodal (EN) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with outcomes being significantly worse in patients with >2 vs <3 EN sites at lymphodepletion.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.5 months, patients with EN and ND DLBCL had similar median progression-free survival (PFS; 10.76 and 14.1 months, respectively; P  =  .126), overall survival (OS; 15.36 and 18.4 months, respectively; P  =  .100), and treatment-related toxicity rates. Patients with <3 vs >2 EN sites had significantly longer median PFS (P  =  .01) and OS (P  =  .05).

Study details: This real-world retrospective multicenter study included 126 patients with DLBCL of EN (n = 72) or ND (n = 42) origin who underwent lymphodepletion followed by CAR-T cell infusion with tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding was provided. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz OB et al. Response rates of extra-nodal diffuse large B cell lymphoma to anti CD19-CAR T cells: A real word retrospective multi-center study. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13968

Key clinical point: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy after lymphodepletion led to similar survival outcomes and toxicity rates in patients with nodal (ND) and extra nodal (EN) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with outcomes being significantly worse in patients with >2 vs <3 EN sites at lymphodepletion.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.5 months, patients with EN and ND DLBCL had similar median progression-free survival (PFS; 10.76 and 14.1 months, respectively; P  =  .126), overall survival (OS; 15.36 and 18.4 months, respectively; P  =  .100), and treatment-related toxicity rates. Patients with <3 vs >2 EN sites had significantly longer median PFS (P  =  .01) and OS (P  =  .05).

Study details: This real-world retrospective multicenter study included 126 patients with DLBCL of EN (n = 72) or ND (n = 42) origin who underwent lymphodepletion followed by CAR-T cell infusion with tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding was provided. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz OB et al. Response rates of extra-nodal diffuse large B cell lymphoma to anti CD19-CAR T cells: A real word retrospective multi-center study. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13968

Key clinical point: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy after lymphodepletion led to similar survival outcomes and toxicity rates in patients with nodal (ND) and extra nodal (EN) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with outcomes being significantly worse in patients with >2 vs <3 EN sites at lymphodepletion.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.5 months, patients with EN and ND DLBCL had similar median progression-free survival (PFS; 10.76 and 14.1 months, respectively; P  =  .126), overall survival (OS; 15.36 and 18.4 months, respectively; P  =  .100), and treatment-related toxicity rates. Patients with <3 vs >2 EN sites had significantly longer median PFS (P  =  .01) and OS (P  =  .05).

Study details: This real-world retrospective multicenter study included 126 patients with DLBCL of EN (n = 72) or ND (n = 42) origin who underwent lymphodepletion followed by CAR-T cell infusion with tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding was provided. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz OB et al. Response rates of extra-nodal diffuse large B cell lymphoma to anti CD19-CAR T cells: A real word retrospective multi-center study. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13968

Key clinical point: Sufficiently fit older patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieve favorable outcomes with dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R); patients with a poor performance status (PS) develop unacceptable toxicity and require less intensive therapy.

Major finding: At 3 years, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 53% and 58%, respectively, and the treatment-related mortality (TRM) rate was 13%. The 3-year PFS (58% vs 32%; P < .001) and OS (64% vs 33%; P  =  .007) rates were significantly higher and TRM rates were significantly lower (6% vs 43%; P < .001) among patients with PS 0-2 vs 3-4.

Study details: This multicenter retrospective real-life study included 120 patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL treated with a median of 6 DA-EPOCH-R cycles per patient.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding or conflicts of interest was provided.

Source: Mitrovic Z et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) in older patients with high-risk aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A real-life multicenter study by the Croatian Cooperative Group for Hematologic diseases (KroHem). Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13957

Key clinical point: Sufficiently fit older patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieve favorable outcomes with dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R); patients with a poor performance status (PS) develop unacceptable toxicity and require less intensive therapy.

Major finding: At 3 years, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 53% and 58%, respectively, and the treatment-related mortality (TRM) rate was 13%. The 3-year PFS (58% vs 32%; P < .001) and OS (64% vs 33%; P  =  .007) rates were significantly higher and TRM rates were significantly lower (6% vs 43%; P < .001) among patients with PS 0-2 vs 3-4.

Study details: This multicenter retrospective real-life study included 120 patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL treated with a median of 6 DA-EPOCH-R cycles per patient.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding or conflicts of interest was provided.

Source: Mitrovic Z et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) in older patients with high-risk aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A real-life multicenter study by the Croatian Cooperative Group for Hematologic diseases (KroHem). Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13957

Key clinical point: Sufficiently fit older patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieve favorable outcomes with dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R); patients with a poor performance status (PS) develop unacceptable toxicity and require less intensive therapy.

Major finding: At 3 years, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 53% and 58%, respectively, and the treatment-related mortality (TRM) rate was 13%. The 3-year PFS (58% vs 32%; P < .001) and OS (64% vs 33%; P  =  .007) rates were significantly higher and TRM rates were significantly lower (6% vs 43%; P < .001) among patients with PS 0-2 vs 3-4.

Study details: This multicenter retrospective real-life study included 120 patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL treated with a median of 6 DA-EPOCH-R cycles per patient.

Disclosures: No information on the source of funding or conflicts of interest was provided.

Source: Mitrovic Z et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) in older patients with high-risk aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A real-life multicenter study by the Croatian Cooperative Group for Hematologic diseases (KroHem). Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13957

Key clinical point: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an effective second-line curative-intent therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs standard of care (SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; hazard ratio 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). The grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory LBCL from the ZUMA-7 trial who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or SOC (n = 58; 2-3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Kite, a Gilead Company. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Kite and Gilead.

Source: Westin JR et al. Safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus standard of care in patients 65 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2023 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3136

Key clinical point: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an effective second-line curative-intent therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs standard of care (SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; hazard ratio 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). The grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory LBCL from the ZUMA-7 trial who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or SOC (n = 58; 2-3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Kite, a Gilead Company. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Kite and Gilead.

Source: Westin JR et al. Safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus standard of care in patients 65 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2023 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3136

Key clinical point: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an effective second-line curative-intent therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs standard of care (SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; hazard ratio 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). The grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥65 years with relapsed or refractory LBCL from the ZUMA-7 trial who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or SOC (n = 58; 2-3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Kite, a Gilead Company. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including Kite and Gilead.

Source: Westin JR et al. Safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus standard of care in patients 65 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2023 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3136

Key clinical point: The addition of venetoclax to lenalidomide plus rituximab therapy may provide an effective and safe combination for the treatment of unselected patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: All patients were escalated to the maximum tolerated dose of venetoclax (400 mg daily). The overall response and complete remission rates were 96% and 86%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, the median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached. No dose-limiting toxicity event was observed.

Study details: This multicenter phase 1 study included 28 unselected adult patients with untreated MCL who received induction therapy with lenalidomide (daily on days 1-21 of each cycle), rituximab (weekly during cycle 1 until cycle 2 day 1), and venetoclax (escalated weekly up to 400 mg daily) for 6-12 cycles followed by maintenance therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie.

Source: Phillips TJ et al. Adding venetoclax to lenalidomide and rituximab is safe and effective in patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023009992

Key clinical point: The addition of venetoclax to lenalidomide plus rituximab therapy may provide an effective and safe combination for the treatment of unselected patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: All patients were escalated to the maximum tolerated dose of venetoclax (400 mg daily). The overall response and complete remission rates were 96% and 86%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, the median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached. No dose-limiting toxicity event was observed.

Study details: This multicenter phase 1 study included 28 unselected adult patients with untreated MCL who received induction therapy with lenalidomide (daily on days 1-21 of each cycle), rituximab (weekly during cycle 1 until cycle 2 day 1), and venetoclax (escalated weekly up to 400 mg daily) for 6-12 cycles followed by maintenance therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie.

Source: Phillips TJ et al. Adding venetoclax to lenalidomide and rituximab is safe and effective in patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023009992

Key clinical point: The addition of venetoclax to lenalidomide plus rituximab therapy may provide an effective and safe combination for the treatment of unselected patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: All patients were escalated to the maximum tolerated dose of venetoclax (400 mg daily). The overall response and complete remission rates were 96% and 86%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, the median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached. No dose-limiting toxicity event was observed.

Study details: This multicenter phase 1 study included 28 unselected adult patients with untreated MCL who received induction therapy with lenalidomide (daily on days 1-21 of each cycle), rituximab (weekly during cycle 1 until cycle 2 day 1), and venetoclax (escalated weekly up to 400 mg daily) for 6-12 cycles followed by maintenance therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie and the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie.

Source: Phillips TJ et al. Adding venetoclax to lenalidomide and rituximab is safe and effective in patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023009992

Key clinical point: Compared with matched control individuals, patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated with or without high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HD-ASCT) had higher hospitalization rates and relative risks for blood disorders and infections.

Major finding: Patients with MCL vs control individuals had a significantly increased incidence rate of outpatient (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.0; 95% CI 1.8-2.2) and inpatient (IRR 7.2; 95% CI 6.3-8.3) visits and relative risks for blood disorders (non-HD-ASCT: hazard ratio [HR] 9.84; 95% CI 6.91-14.00; HD-ASCT: HR 5.80; 95% CI 3.42-9.84) and infections (non-HD-ASCT: HR 4.66; 95% CI 3.62-5.99; HD-ASCT: HR 5.62; 95% CI 4.20-7.52).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 620 adult patients with MCL who did (n = 247) or did not (n = 373) receive HD-ASCT and 6200 matched control individuals without MCL.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Ekberg S et al. Late effects in patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated with or without autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2023;7(5):866-874 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007241

Key clinical point: Compared with matched control individuals, patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated with or without high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HD-ASCT) had higher hospitalization rates and relative risks for blood disorders and infections.

Major finding: Patients with MCL vs control individuals had a significantly increased incidence rate of outpatient (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.0; 95% CI 1.8-2.2) and inpatient (IRR 7.2; 95% CI 6.3-8.3) visits and relative risks for blood disorders (non-HD-ASCT: hazard ratio [HR] 9.84; 95% CI 6.91-14.00; HD-ASCT: HR 5.80; 95% CI 3.42-9.84) and infections (non-HD-ASCT: HR 4.66; 95% CI 3.62-5.99; HD-ASCT: HR 5.62; 95% CI 4.20-7.52).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 620 adult patients with MCL who did (n = 247) or did not (n = 373) receive HD-ASCT and 6200 matched control individuals without MCL.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Ekberg S et al. Late effects in patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated with or without autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2023;7(5):866-874 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007241

Key clinical point: Compared with matched control individuals, patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated with or without high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HD-ASCT) had higher hospitalization rates and relative risks for blood disorders and infections.

Major finding: Patients with MCL vs control individuals had a significantly increased incidence rate of outpatient (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.0; 95% CI 1.8-2.2) and inpatient (IRR 7.2; 95% CI 6.3-8.3) visits and relative risks for blood disorders (non-HD-ASCT: hazard ratio [HR] 9.84; 95% CI 6.91-14.00; HD-ASCT: HR 5.80; 95% CI 3.42-9.84) and infections (non-HD-ASCT: HR 4.66; 95% CI 3.62-5.99; HD-ASCT: HR 5.62; 95% CI 4.20-7.52).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 620 adult patients with MCL who did (n = 247) or did not (n = 373) receive HD-ASCT and 6200 matched control individuals without MCL.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors reported ties with various organizations.

Source: Ekberg S et al. Late effects in patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated with or without autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2023;7(5):866-874 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007241

Key clinical point: Compared with bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab (Ibru+BR) prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are ineligible for intensive therapy.

Major finding: Ibru+BR significantly improved PFS compared with VR-CAP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P  =  .03) and R-CHOP (HR 0.35; P < .001). Adverse event risks were not significantly different in the Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, and BR treatment arms.

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 3 studies involving 1459 patients with newly diagnosed MCL who were ineligible for intensive therapy and received first-line Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, or BR.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sheng Z and Wang L. Superiority of ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab in newly diagnosed patients with mantle-cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive therapy: A network meta-analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13953

Key clinical point: Compared with bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab (Ibru+BR) prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are ineligible for intensive therapy.

Major finding: Ibru+BR significantly improved PFS compared with VR-CAP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P  =  .03) and R-CHOP (HR 0.35; P < .001). Adverse event risks were not significantly different in the Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, and BR treatment arms.

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 3 studies involving 1459 patients with newly diagnosed MCL who were ineligible for intensive therapy and received first-line Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, or BR.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sheng Z and Wang L. Superiority of ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab in newly diagnosed patients with mantle-cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive therapy: A network meta-analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13953

Key clinical point: Compared with bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab (Ibru+BR) prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are ineligible for intensive therapy.

Major finding: Ibru+BR significantly improved PFS compared with VR-CAP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P  =  .03) and R-CHOP (HR 0.35; P < .001). Adverse event risks were not significantly different in the Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, and BR treatment arms.

Study details: The data come from a network meta-analysis of 3 studies involving 1459 patients with newly diagnosed MCL who were ineligible for intensive therapy and received first-line Ibru+BR, VR-CAP, R-CHOP, or BR.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sheng Z and Wang L. Superiority of ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab in newly diagnosed patients with mantle-cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive therapy: A network meta-analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13953

Key clinical point: Compared with chemoimmunotherapy, second-line targeted therapies improved treatment-free survival (TFS) and tended to improve overall survival (OS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including those who were frail and had comorbidities.

Major finding: The 3-year TFS and estimated OS rates were higher in patients receiving targeted therapies (63%, 95% CI 50%-76%; and 79%, 95% CI 68%-91%, respectively) vs fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab (FCR/BR; 37%,; 95% CI 26%-48%; and 70%, 95% CI 60%-81%, respectively) or chlorambucil+/−CD20-antibody (CD20Clb/Clb; 22%, 95% CI 10%-33%; and 60%, 95% CI 47%-74%, respectively). The grade ≥3 adverse event rate was similar with targeted treatment and FCR/BR.

Study details: This retrospective population-based real-world study included 286 patients with CLL who relapsed or were refractory to first-line treatment and received second-line targeted treatment (ibrutinib+venetoclax, venetoclax, venetoclax+rituximab/obinutuzumab, idelalisib, or idelalisib+rituximab), FCR/BR, or CD20Clb/Clb.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by grants from Rigshospitalets Foundation. Some authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Vainer N et al. Real-world outcomes upon second-line treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18715

Key clinical point: Compared with chemoimmunotherapy, second-line targeted therapies improved treatment-free survival (TFS) and tended to improve overall survival (OS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including those who were frail and had comorbidities.

Major finding: The 3-year TFS and estimated OS rates were higher in patients receiving targeted therapies (63%, 95% CI 50%-76%; and 79%, 95% CI 68%-91%, respectively) vs fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab (FCR/BR; 37%,; 95% CI 26%-48%; and 70%, 95% CI 60%-81%, respectively) or chlorambucil+/−CD20-antibody (CD20Clb/Clb; 22%, 95% CI 10%-33%; and 60%, 95% CI 47%-74%, respectively). The grade ≥3 adverse event rate was similar with targeted treatment and FCR/BR.

Study details: This retrospective population-based real-world study included 286 patients with CLL who relapsed or were refractory to first-line treatment and received second-line targeted treatment (ibrutinib+venetoclax, venetoclax, venetoclax+rituximab/obinutuzumab, idelalisib, or idelalisib+rituximab), FCR/BR, or CD20Clb/Clb.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by grants from Rigshospitalets Foundation. Some authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Vainer N et al. Real-world outcomes upon second-line treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18715

Key clinical point: Compared with chemoimmunotherapy, second-line targeted therapies improved treatment-free survival (TFS) and tended to improve overall survival (OS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including those who were frail and had comorbidities.

Major finding: The 3-year TFS and estimated OS rates were higher in patients receiving targeted therapies (63%, 95% CI 50%-76%; and 79%, 95% CI 68%-91%, respectively) vs fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab (FCR/BR; 37%,; 95% CI 26%-48%; and 70%, 95% CI 60%-81%, respectively) or chlorambucil+/−CD20-antibody (CD20Clb/Clb; 22%, 95% CI 10%-33%; and 60%, 95% CI 47%-74%, respectively). The grade ≥3 adverse event rate was similar with targeted treatment and FCR/BR.

Study details: This retrospective population-based real-world study included 286 patients with CLL who relapsed or were refractory to first-line treatment and received second-line targeted treatment (ibrutinib+venetoclax, venetoclax, venetoclax+rituximab/obinutuzumab, idelalisib, or idelalisib+rituximab), FCR/BR, or CD20Clb/Clb.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by grants from Rigshospitalets Foundation. Some authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Vainer N et al. Real-world outcomes upon second-line treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1111/bjh.18715

Since 2018, the field of headache medicine has changed significantly. The development of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting preventive medications has led to the ability to treat migraine in a much more specific manner. The development of CGRP acute oral medications over the past 2 years has allowed people with migraine the ability to use well-tolerated, migraine-specific, abortive treatments. Triptan medications were the first migraine-specific acute treatments developed, some of which were nonoral, such as injectable sumatriptan and intranasal sumatriptan and zolmitriptan. The study by Lipton and colleagues assesses the safety and tolerability of a novel acute CGRP antagonist nonoral treatment, zavegepant.

In this double-blind, randomized, multicentered trial, nearly 2000 participants were enrolled with a diagnosis of episodic migraine with or without aura; they were excluded if they had previously used another CGRP antagonist, either an injectable or oral medication, before enrolling in this study. In addition to assessing migraine pain, participants were asked to identify their otherwise most bothersome symptom, specifically photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were given a nasal spray to self-administer and were assessed at 15 minutes after treatment and at multiple additional intervals, up to 48 hours after the initial dosing. The primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after treatment onset. There were 17 secondary endpoints.

At 2 hours after treatment onset, a statistically significant group had achieved freedom from pain. The percentage, however, did remain somewhat low: 24%. Freedom from the most bothersome symptom was also statistically significant but was up to 40%. For 13 of the 17 endpoints, the results were also statistically significant, including pain relief at 2 hours, sustained pain relief at 2-24 hours and 48 hours, functional improvement, and freedom from photophobia and phonophobia. The most common adverse effects were poor taste, nasal discomfort, and throat irritation. No serious adverse events were noted.

Zavegepant has been FDA approved for the acute treatment of migraine on the basis of these data. This is a novel, well-tolerated, nonoral acute treatment for migraine. We can now treat patients with very severe nausea or more sudden-onset pain with a CGRP option that can potentially treat their attacks more quickly.

One early finding in many of the CGRP studies was that a certain subpopulation of migraine patients have a robust and rapid preventive response to monoclonal antibody treatment. Raffaelli and colleagues sought to evaluate potential characteristics that would better predict the efficacy of CGRP antagonist monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine.

In this study, the definition of a superresponse to CGRP antagonist treatment was a >75% reduction in monthly headache days after 3 months of treatment. Nonresponse was defined as <25% reduction over this same period. This was a retrospective cohort study at one headache center in Berlin, Germany. A total of 260 patients were enrolled, all with a diagnosis of migraine and all given a preventive CGRP monoclonal antibody.

There was no significant difference between nonresponders and superresponders when compared for sex, age, or time since migraine diagnosis. Erenumab was the most commonly prescribed CGRP antagonist medication, but all CGRP antagonists were included. There was no significant difference when CGRP receptor or ligand targeting antibodies were compared. Nonresponders were seen as more likely to have chronic migraine and higher monthly headache day and monthly migraine day frequencies. Superresponders were seen to have more "typical" migraine characteristics, such as unilateral or localized migraines or migraines with pulsating/throbbing characteristics, as well as the presence of photophobia and nausea; however, this was not statistically significant. Of note, superresponders were also significantly more likely to report improvement of their acute migraine attacks with triptan medications as compared with nonresponders.

Patients with less frequent migraine attacks and more classic migraine attacks appear to be much more likely to respond quickly and effectively to many preventive options; this appears to be most robust with the CGRP antibody class. Although the reason for this robust response is not entirely clear, it would certainly be best for providers to consider the initiation of CGRP antagonist preventive treatment in patients with these characteristics.

The newest generation of migraine-specific medications targets either the inflammatory neurotransmitter CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Erenumab is a CGRP receptor blocker, whereas both fremanezumab and galcanezumab block the CGRP ligand. Erenumab has been associated with constipation and high blood pressure, whereas the other CGRP antagonist medications are not associated with these side effects. Whether this is due to the difference in mechanism of action, and specifically whether the antibodies block the CGRP receptor or are an antagonist, is under consideration. Schiano di Cola and colleagues specifically sought to investigate the subtle differences between these two subclasses of treatment.

Patients with high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine were enrolled in this retrospective study; 6 months of data were included. The researchers here specifically looked at efficacy after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment. They examined, as a primary outcome, monthly headache and migraine days, and migraine disability as based on the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score. Concomitant analgesic medication consumption and response rate relative to baseline were also compared.

A total of 152 patients were enrolled, 68 with CGRP ligand-targeting therapy and 84 with CGRP receptor-blocking therapy. Medication overuse was present in 73% of patients. Although a significant improvement from baseline was noted in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, severity, analgesic consumption, and disability, MIDAS scores were significantly lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group compared with the CGRP receptor group at 1 and 3 months. Number of monthly migraine days was also lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group, but only after 3 months. The other variables, including monthly headache days per month, analgesic consumption, severity, and disability, were not statistically different.

Adverse events were not compared between the two groups, even though this was a prior noted difference between these two classes of medications. Although there are some slight differences in efficacy, the majority of outcome metrics did not appear to be significantly different in either group. One would be hard-pressed to choose a specific CGRP medication on the basis of these data.

Since 2018, the field of headache medicine has changed significantly. The development of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting preventive medications has led to the ability to treat migraine in a much more specific manner. The development of CGRP acute oral medications over the past 2 years has allowed people with migraine the ability to use well-tolerated, migraine-specific, abortive treatments. Triptan medications were the first migraine-specific acute treatments developed, some of which were nonoral, such as injectable sumatriptan and intranasal sumatriptan and zolmitriptan. The study by Lipton and colleagues assesses the safety and tolerability of a novel acute CGRP antagonist nonoral treatment, zavegepant.

In this double-blind, randomized, multicentered trial, nearly 2000 participants were enrolled with a diagnosis of episodic migraine with or without aura; they were excluded if they had previously used another CGRP antagonist, either an injectable or oral medication, before enrolling in this study. In addition to assessing migraine pain, participants were asked to identify their otherwise most bothersome symptom, specifically photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were given a nasal spray to self-administer and were assessed at 15 minutes after treatment and at multiple additional intervals, up to 48 hours after the initial dosing. The primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after treatment onset. There were 17 secondary endpoints.

At 2 hours after treatment onset, a statistically significant group had achieved freedom from pain. The percentage, however, did remain somewhat low: 24%. Freedom from the most bothersome symptom was also statistically significant but was up to 40%. For 13 of the 17 endpoints, the results were also statistically significant, including pain relief at 2 hours, sustained pain relief at 2-24 hours and 48 hours, functional improvement, and freedom from photophobia and phonophobia. The most common adverse effects were poor taste, nasal discomfort, and throat irritation. No serious adverse events were noted.

Zavegepant has been FDA approved for the acute treatment of migraine on the basis of these data. This is a novel, well-tolerated, nonoral acute treatment for migraine. We can now treat patients with very severe nausea or more sudden-onset pain with a CGRP option that can potentially treat their attacks more quickly.

One early finding in many of the CGRP studies was that a certain subpopulation of migraine patients have a robust and rapid preventive response to monoclonal antibody treatment. Raffaelli and colleagues sought to evaluate potential characteristics that would better predict the efficacy of CGRP antagonist monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine.

In this study, the definition of a superresponse to CGRP antagonist treatment was a >75% reduction in monthly headache days after 3 months of treatment. Nonresponse was defined as <25% reduction over this same period. This was a retrospective cohort study at one headache center in Berlin, Germany. A total of 260 patients were enrolled, all with a diagnosis of migraine and all given a preventive CGRP monoclonal antibody.

There was no significant difference between nonresponders and superresponders when compared for sex, age, or time since migraine diagnosis. Erenumab was the most commonly prescribed CGRP antagonist medication, but all CGRP antagonists were included. There was no significant difference when CGRP receptor or ligand targeting antibodies were compared. Nonresponders were seen as more likely to have chronic migraine and higher monthly headache day and monthly migraine day frequencies. Superresponders were seen to have more "typical" migraine characteristics, such as unilateral or localized migraines or migraines with pulsating/throbbing characteristics, as well as the presence of photophobia and nausea; however, this was not statistically significant. Of note, superresponders were also significantly more likely to report improvement of their acute migraine attacks with triptan medications as compared with nonresponders.

Patients with less frequent migraine attacks and more classic migraine attacks appear to be much more likely to respond quickly and effectively to many preventive options; this appears to be most robust with the CGRP antibody class. Although the reason for this robust response is not entirely clear, it would certainly be best for providers to consider the initiation of CGRP antagonist preventive treatment in patients with these characteristics.

The newest generation of migraine-specific medications targets either the inflammatory neurotransmitter CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Erenumab is a CGRP receptor blocker, whereas both fremanezumab and galcanezumab block the CGRP ligand. Erenumab has been associated with constipation and high blood pressure, whereas the other CGRP antagonist medications are not associated with these side effects. Whether this is due to the difference in mechanism of action, and specifically whether the antibodies block the CGRP receptor or are an antagonist, is under consideration. Schiano di Cola and colleagues specifically sought to investigate the subtle differences between these two subclasses of treatment.

Patients with high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine were enrolled in this retrospective study; 6 months of data were included. The researchers here specifically looked at efficacy after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment. They examined, as a primary outcome, monthly headache and migraine days, and migraine disability as based on the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score. Concomitant analgesic medication consumption and response rate relative to baseline were also compared.

A total of 152 patients were enrolled, 68 with CGRP ligand-targeting therapy and 84 with CGRP receptor-blocking therapy. Medication overuse was present in 73% of patients. Although a significant improvement from baseline was noted in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, severity, analgesic consumption, and disability, MIDAS scores were significantly lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group compared with the CGRP receptor group at 1 and 3 months. Number of monthly migraine days was also lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group, but only after 3 months. The other variables, including monthly headache days per month, analgesic consumption, severity, and disability, were not statistically different.

Adverse events were not compared between the two groups, even though this was a prior noted difference between these two classes of medications. Although there are some slight differences in efficacy, the majority of outcome metrics did not appear to be significantly different in either group. One would be hard-pressed to choose a specific CGRP medication on the basis of these data.

Since 2018, the field of headache medicine has changed significantly. The development of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting preventive medications has led to the ability to treat migraine in a much more specific manner. The development of CGRP acute oral medications over the past 2 years has allowed people with migraine the ability to use well-tolerated, migraine-specific, abortive treatments. Triptan medications were the first migraine-specific acute treatments developed, some of which were nonoral, such as injectable sumatriptan and intranasal sumatriptan and zolmitriptan. The study by Lipton and colleagues assesses the safety and tolerability of a novel acute CGRP antagonist nonoral treatment, zavegepant.

In this double-blind, randomized, multicentered trial, nearly 2000 participants were enrolled with a diagnosis of episodic migraine with or without aura; they were excluded if they had previously used another CGRP antagonist, either an injectable or oral medication, before enrolling in this study. In addition to assessing migraine pain, participants were asked to identify their otherwise most bothersome symptom, specifically photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were given a nasal spray to self-administer and were assessed at 15 minutes after treatment and at multiple additional intervals, up to 48 hours after the initial dosing. The primary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after treatment onset. There were 17 secondary endpoints.

At 2 hours after treatment onset, a statistically significant group had achieved freedom from pain. The percentage, however, did remain somewhat low: 24%. Freedom from the most bothersome symptom was also statistically significant but was up to 40%. For 13 of the 17 endpoints, the results were also statistically significant, including pain relief at 2 hours, sustained pain relief at 2-24 hours and 48 hours, functional improvement, and freedom from photophobia and phonophobia. The most common adverse effects were poor taste, nasal discomfort, and throat irritation. No serious adverse events were noted.

Zavegepant has been FDA approved for the acute treatment of migraine on the basis of these data. This is a novel, well-tolerated, nonoral acute treatment for migraine. We can now treat patients with very severe nausea or more sudden-onset pain with a CGRP option that can potentially treat their attacks more quickly.

One early finding in many of the CGRP studies was that a certain subpopulation of migraine patients have a robust and rapid preventive response to monoclonal antibody treatment. Raffaelli and colleagues sought to evaluate potential characteristics that would better predict the efficacy of CGRP antagonist monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine.

In this study, the definition of a superresponse to CGRP antagonist treatment was a >75% reduction in monthly headache days after 3 months of treatment. Nonresponse was defined as <25% reduction over this same period. This was a retrospective cohort study at one headache center in Berlin, Germany. A total of 260 patients were enrolled, all with a diagnosis of migraine and all given a preventive CGRP monoclonal antibody.

There was no significant difference between nonresponders and superresponders when compared for sex, age, or time since migraine diagnosis. Erenumab was the most commonly prescribed CGRP antagonist medication, but all CGRP antagonists were included. There was no significant difference when CGRP receptor or ligand targeting antibodies were compared. Nonresponders were seen as more likely to have chronic migraine and higher monthly headache day and monthly migraine day frequencies. Superresponders were seen to have more "typical" migraine characteristics, such as unilateral or localized migraines or migraines with pulsating/throbbing characteristics, as well as the presence of photophobia and nausea; however, this was not statistically significant. Of note, superresponders were also significantly more likely to report improvement of their acute migraine attacks with triptan medications as compared with nonresponders.

Patients with less frequent migraine attacks and more classic migraine attacks appear to be much more likely to respond quickly and effectively to many preventive options; this appears to be most robust with the CGRP antibody class. Although the reason for this robust response is not entirely clear, it would certainly be best for providers to consider the initiation of CGRP antagonist preventive treatment in patients with these characteristics.

The newest generation of migraine-specific medications targets either the inflammatory neurotransmitter CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Erenumab is a CGRP receptor blocker, whereas both fremanezumab and galcanezumab block the CGRP ligand. Erenumab has been associated with constipation and high blood pressure, whereas the other CGRP antagonist medications are not associated with these side effects. Whether this is due to the difference in mechanism of action, and specifically whether the antibodies block the CGRP receptor or are an antagonist, is under consideration. Schiano di Cola and colleagues specifically sought to investigate the subtle differences between these two subclasses of treatment.

Patients with high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine were enrolled in this retrospective study; 6 months of data were included. The researchers here specifically looked at efficacy after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment. They examined, as a primary outcome, monthly headache and migraine days, and migraine disability as based on the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score. Concomitant analgesic medication consumption and response rate relative to baseline were also compared.

A total of 152 patients were enrolled, 68 with CGRP ligand-targeting therapy and 84 with CGRP receptor-blocking therapy. Medication overuse was present in 73% of patients. Although a significant improvement from baseline was noted in monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, severity, analgesic consumption, and disability, MIDAS scores were significantly lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group compared with the CGRP receptor group at 1 and 3 months. Number of monthly migraine days was also lower in the CGRP ligand-blocking group, but only after 3 months. The other variables, including monthly headache days per month, analgesic consumption, severity, and disability, were not statistically different.

Adverse events were not compared between the two groups, even though this was a prior noted difference between these two classes of medications. Although there are some slight differences in efficacy, the majority of outcome metrics did not appear to be significantly different in either group. One would be hard-pressed to choose a specific CGRP medication on the basis of these data.