Conference Coverage

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single infusion of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy ciltacabtagene autoleucel, or cilta-cel (CARVYKTI, Janssen Biotech, Inc.), reduces the risk for death by 45% vs standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, according to the latest data from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 study.

“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.

A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.

The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.

“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”

At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.

The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.

Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).

Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.

Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.

The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.

Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.

“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.

“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”

Toxicity is also a concern, he said.

“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.

For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.

“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”

Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are not eligible for stem cell transplant or are transplant-deferred, adding subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) significantly improves minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes among patients, the first results from the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial showed.

“CEPHEUS is the first phase 3 daratumumab trial with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity,” said first author Saad Z. Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, in presenting late-breaking findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in late September.

“We found that adding daratumumab to VRd significantly improved depth and duration of response,” Dr. Usmani said. “[The quadruplet regimen] has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred patients with newly diagnosed MM who can tolerate bortezomib.”

For newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant, the triplet MAIA regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is a recommended standard of care, having shown a median overall survival of 7.5 years.

However, for those who are transplant eligible, the PERSEUS regimen of D-VRd followed by daratumumab/lenalidomide maintenance, has shown significant progress-free survival benefits compared with the standard of care.

For the ongoing, multicenter, open-label CEPHEUS study, Dr. Usmani and his colleagues investigated the efficacy of the quadruplet D-VRd regimen compared with VRd alone among newly diagnosed patients who are transplant-ineligible or deferred (not planned as initial therapy).

In the trial, 395 adult patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed MM all were initially treated with eight 21-day cycles of VRd, followed by 28-day cycles of lenalidomide until disease progression.

The patients were then randomized to VRd either with (n = 197) or without (n = 198) subcutaneous daratumumab.

Those receiving daratumumab received the subcutaneous therapy weekly in cycles 1 and 2, every 3 weeks in cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in cycles 9 or more, until disease progression.

The patients had a median age of 70 years; 28.1% had International Staging System stage III disease, and 13.2% had high-risk cytogenetics.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 58.7 months, those in the daratumumab group had a significantly higher rate of being MRD-negative (60.9%) than the VRd-only group (39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; P < .0001).

Likewise, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with the daratumumab regimen vs VRd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .0005).

A median PFS was not reached for daratumumab plus VRd, compared with 52.6 months for the VRd group, while estimated 54-month PFS rates were 68.1% vs 49.5%, respectively.

A complete response or better was achieved among 81.2% in the daratumumab regimen vs 61.6% with VRd alone (P < .0001) and a sustained rate of MRD-negativity was achieved in 48.7% vs 26.3%, respectively (P < .0001).

There was a trend of overall survival in favor of daratumumab plus VRd (HR, 0.85), with an HR of 0.69 in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for deaths related to COVID-19.

Patients in the daratumumab group had a substantially longer median duration of treatment (56.3 months) than the VRd-only group (34.3 months), with the most common reason for treatment discontinuation being disease progression.

The benefit of daratumumab was generally consistent across the study’s prespecified subgroups, and the relative dose intensity of VRd was not affected by combination with daratumumab.

In terms of safety, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with the known profile of daratumumab and VRd, with grade 5 TEAEs comparable between the two groups after adjusting for treatment exposure.

Quality of life, as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 score, was improved in both arms over time, with no detriment related to treatment with daratumumab.

Of note, frail patients were not included in the trial. Asked in the Q and A why they were excluded, Dr. Usmani explained that “all of these options are wonderful for our patients, and we are entering a phase where quadruplet therapies will become a mainstay for majority of patients.

“But we have to be careful as we think about not overtreating patients or giving too many side effects of therapies, and that’s why it made sense for us to exclude the frail patients.”

Along those lines, he noted that a key concern in the CEPHEUS trial was tolerance of bortezomib.

“Peripheral sensory neuropathy tends to occur in about half of the patients receiving bortezomib, and about half of that number is grade 2 or higher,” he noted in an interview.

“In some patients, the symptoms do not completely resolve. [Therefore], in transplant-ineligible patients, quadruple regimens may be more relevant for the fit or intermediate-fit patients.”

He concluded that “the CEPHEUS trial compliments the MAIA regimen in supporting a daratumumab-based quadruplet or triplet standard-of-care option across transplant-ineligible patients and those deferring transplant.”

Commenting on the study, Philippe Moreau, MD, who is president of the IMS, noted that “the CEPHEUS study is important because [determining] the best treatment upfront for elderly patients is very important.”

“We need confirmation of the very good results achieved with the IMROZ trial, which showed an estimated 5-year PFS of 63.2%, said Dr. Moreau, professor of clinical hematology and head of the translational research program in hematology and oncology at the University Hospital of Nantes, France.

“If we can achieve the same results, we will have the confirmation that quadruplet is probably here to stay,” Dr. Moreau said.

Dr. Usmani disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineOx, and Takeda.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DUBLIN – As healthcare systems across Europe deal with an increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment, family doctors are emerging as key players in assessing and supporting patients’ decision-making capacities. 

This was a central theme at the 29th WONCA Europe Conference, where the European Young Family Doctors Movement (EYFDM) presented insights from a project conducted across Europe, involving young general practitioners who participated in workshops held in multiple countries.

“Family doctors are the linchpin in these decisions,” said Alina Zidaru, MD, from the Irish College of Physicians, Dublin. “They understand the patient’s history, build long-term relationships, and are best positioned to ensure that decisions reflect the patient’s values, not just what the law or the family might say.”

Dr. Zidaru and her colleague, Nick Mamo, MD, member of EYFDM in Glasgow, Scotland, emphasized the central role family doctors play in ensuring that patient rights and preferences are respected, regardless of their cognitive state. They are often the first to identify cognitive impairments and must carefully navigate the legal and ethical landscape of decision-making support.

“Often, we focus too much on avoiding harm and overlook the principle of autonomy,” said Dr. Mamo. “But it’s essential to give patients the right to make their own decisions, even when those decisions might seem unwise to us.”
 

The Case of Jay

Dr. Zidaru said: “We’ve conducted workshops in Brussels, Vienna, and Sydney, focusing on how to build habits that support patients. We presented real-life cases, like Jay, a 43-year-old man with trisomy and a moderate intellectual disability who must decide whether to undergo surgery for a hernia. The most significant challenge was ensuring continuity of care and respecting his autonomy, despite cognitive limitations.”

Jay’s case illustrates the complex ethical dilemmas faced by family doctors when balancing autonomy with patient safety. In many cases, cognitive impairments raise concerns about whether a patient can make decisions independently. 

During the session, the audience was asked to share their thoughts on the case and to indicate whether they would allow Jay to make his own decision, and if they felt confident in assessing his cognitive capacity. The responses revealed a range of mixed feelings. 
 

Legal and Cultural Variations Across Europe

The session also explored how different European countries approach decision-making for cognitively impaired individuals. A clear divide exists between nations that give family members automatic decision-making rights and those that require legal appointments. 

In the United Kingdom, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes capacity unless proven otherwise. Family doctors can assess patients’ decision-making abilities using any validated tool they find suitable. They should also aim to ensure that decisions are made in the patient’s best interests if they lack capacity. Family members only have legal authority if appointed through formal means, such as a lasting power of attorney.

In Spain and Italy, functional assessments are performed when patients retain decision-making authority in areas where they demonstrate competence. Legal guardianship can be appointed by the courts, sometimes limited to specific areas, but it is intended to support rather than replace the patient’s autonomy. 

In France and Portugal, guardianship may be implemented in specific domains, but the patient’s ability to participate in decisions is always prioritized. 

In Turkey, according to Turkish general practitioners in the audience, the courts and close family members often share the decision-making responsibility.

Dr. Zidaru added that Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 introduced significant changes to how cognitive impairment is managed there. “Ireland adopted a standardized functional test of capacity, used by any doctor. A person can still make decisions as long as they understand, retain, and weigh the information needed to make that choice. If their capacity diminishes, a decision-making assistant, co–decision-maker, or representative can be appointed, but the patient’s will and preferences always come first.”
 

Family Doctors, a Growing Responsibility

“It’s not just about the legal framework: it’s about cultural awareness and early communication,” added Dr. Mamo. “We have to ask ourselves: Do patients have the right to make bad decisions? And how do we, as family doctors, respect that while still ensuring their safety?”

The session concluded with a discussion on how the role of family doctors in decision-making for cognitively impaired patients will evolve as populations age and the incidence of conditions like dementia increases. The workload is rising, and the need for clear, consistent guidelines is critical.

“Family doctors will continue to play a central role in managing these challenges,” Dr. Zidaru emphasized. “But we need more resources, more education, and more support to ensure we can respect patient autonomy without compromising their well-being.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN — Growing evidence supports the use of highly effective disease-modifying therapies for children with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, only few of these medications are licensed for pediatric use, indicating it may be time to reconsider the standard treatment approach for this patient population.

Treatments for pediatric-onset MS have mostly been used off-label until the recent approvals of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, and teriflunomide. Typically, children with MS start with moderately effective therapies, while more potent options are reserved for those who don’t respond.

However, recent research suggests this may not be the most effective treatment strategy for this patient population. Several studies suggesting impressive treatment responses to highly effective therapies (HETs) in children were presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting.

In one study, initiating monoclonal antibody treatment during childhood was associated with reduced disability into early adulthood and beyond.

“Our findings are a strong argument for rethinking current treatment guidelines,” said study investigator Sifat Sharmin, PhD, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

“By allowing earlier access to highly effective treatments, we can significantly enhance the quality of life for children with MS and reduce the burden of long-term disability,” she added.

In another presentation, Yael Hacohen, MD, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, England, noted that the use of these more effective monoclonal antibody therapies in children with MS has been associated with some improvements in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores after 2 or 3 years of treatment.

Maybe this is a sign that “this is a population that can repair, in contrast to adult patients,” she wondered.

MS is primarily a disease of adults, but pediatric MS accounts for up to 5% of all cases. Children with MS tend to have much more active disease than adults, Dr. Hacohen explained. However, they also tend to recover from attacks more quickly with little disability, which sometimes causes diagnostic delays.

A pediatrician or family doctor will often dismiss pins and needles or blurred vision that only lasts a couple of days and won’t send the patient for an MRI, she said. But on MRI, pediatric patients with MS often have multiple lesions, even though they may have had very few symptoms. The EDSS may not change very much, but there can still be significant brain atrophy.

Over the past 20 years, there’s been an explosion of new disease-modifying treatments for MS, but these high-efficacy treatments, such as antibody therapies, are often not prescribed until the patient reaches the age of 18 years, both Dr. Sharmin and Dr. Hacohen pointed out.

“We need to get some of these medications approved for use in children,” Dr. Hacohen said.
 

Slowed Disability

In her presentation, Dr. Sharmin reported an observational study that included 282 patients younger than 18 years at MS onset identified from the French MS Registry, the Italian MS Register, and the Global MSBase Registry.

Of these, 110 (39%) had initiated therapy with ocrelizumab, rituximab, or natalizumab early in the disease course between ages 12 and 17 years and 172 (61%) had initiated treatment with one of these agents at ages 20-22 years.

The primary outcome was the difference in EDSS scores from baseline (at age 18 years) to ages 23-27 years between those who had started treatment with one of these agents early and those who had started late.

At the baseline of age 18 years, the median EDSS score was 1.5 in the early group and 1.3 in the late group. Median follow-up time was 10.8 years.

The data were adjusted for baseline differences in factors such as sex, age at symptom onset, time from onset to clinically definite MS, and the number of relapses (using inverse probability treatment weighting based on propensity scores).

Results showed that between ages 23 and 27 years, disability was a 0.57 step lower in the early group than in the late group. The mean absolute differences in EDSS from baseline were 0.40 in the early group and 0.95 in the late group. This benefit of early treatment persisted throughout the rest of the follow-up period.

The substantially lower risk of progressing to higher disability levels in the early treatment group was particularly evident in the moderate disability range, where further progression was reduced by up to 97%, Dr. Sharmin noted.

“Starting these highly effective therapies, before the onset of significant neurological impairments, appears crucial for preserving neurological function in children with relapsing-remitting MS over the long term,” she said.

These findings highlight the critical importance of early intervention in pediatric-onset MS, she concluded.

The researchers are planning further work to generate more evidence to support the proactive treatment of pediatric-onset MS, with a particular focus on assessing the long-term risks for immunosuppressive therapies in this population.
 

Ocrelizumab Experience in Children

Dr. Hacohen reported on a UK cohort of children with MS treated with ocrelizumab, with 66 patients having more than 12 months of follow-up. Of these, only four patients had relapses, and there was no evidence of disease activity in 94% patients.

“We’ve stopped doing relapse clinic because they really don’t relapse,” Dr. Hacohen reported.

“This has completely changed our practice in pediatric MS,” she said. Twice a year, patients come in to have pre-infusion bloods and clinical assessments and then return a month later for treatment.

“They only have to come to the hospital for 4 days a year, and the rest of the time, they can forget they have MS,” said Dr. Hacohen.

In terms of complications, one patient in the UK cohort developed enterovirus meningitis but recovered completely, and two patients had hypogammaglobulinemia and were changed to an extended interval or to a different agent.

Dr. Hacohen cautioned that hypogammaglobulinemia — a condition in which immunoglobulin levels are below normal — is “something that hypothetically we should maybe be more worried about in the pediatric population, particularly as these patients are more likely to be on anti-CD20 therapies for a much longer time.”

She said this complication tends to happen after about 4 or 5 years of treatment. “If we start seeing IgG levels dropping, we need to come up with a plan about extending the dosing interval. We need clinical trials to look at this.”

Dr. Hacohen also drew attention to the issue of vaccinations not being effective in patients on anti-CD20 antibody therapy, which could be a particular problem in children.

However, given that vaccinations do seem to be effective in patients taking natalizumab, pediatric patients with highly active disease could receive the drug for 3-6 months while receiving vaccines and then switched over to ocrelizumab, she said.

Giving natalizumab for such a short period is not believed to have a high risk of developing JCV antibodies, she added.

In another presentation, Brenda Banwell, MD, Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, reported new data from an early study (OPERETTA 1) with ocrelizumab in pediatric relapsing-remitting MS showing a safety profile similar to that observed in adults. The suggested dose is 300 mg for children under 35 kg and 600 mg for adults over 35 kg, administered every 24 weeks. These doses will be further investigated in the ongoing phase III OPERETTA 2 trial.

Dr. Sharmin received a postdoctoral fellowship from MS Australia. The OPERETTA studies were sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Banwell served as a consultant to Roche. Dr. Hacohen reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The investigational agent ecopipam reduces tic severity in children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome without exacerbating common psychiatric comorbidities, results of a new analysis suggest.

As previously reported, the first-in-class dopamine-1 (D1) receptor antagonist reduced the primary endpoint of tic severity scores by 30% compared with placebo among 149 patients in the 12-week, phase 2b D1AMOND trial. 

What was unknown, however, is whether ecopipam would affect the comorbidities of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and depression that were present in two thirds of participants.

The two key findings in this post hoc analysis were “first, that patients with a nonmotor diagnosis like depression or ADHD did not do any worse in terms of tic efficacy; and second, we didn’t find any evidence that any of the nonmotor symptoms of Tourette’s got worse with ecopipam,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology at University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Gilbert presented the results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024. 
 

No Worsening of ADHD Symptoms

Tourette syndrome affects approximately 1 in 160 children between 5 and 17 years of age in the United States, data from the Tourette Association of America show. Research has shown that 85% of patients with Tourette syndrome will have a co-occurring psychiatric condition. 

Guidelines recommend Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT) as first-line treatment for Tourette syndrome, but cost and access are barriers. The only currently approved medications to treat Tourette syndrome are antipsychotics that act on the D2 receptor, but their use is limited by the potential for weight gain, metabolic changes, drug-induced movement disorders, and risk for suicidality, said Dr. Gilbert. 

The D1AMOND study randomly assigned patients aged 6-17 years with Tourette syndrome and a Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Scale score of at least 20 to receive a target steady-state dose of 2 mg/kg/d of oral ecopipam or placebo for a 4-week titration period, followed by an 8-week treatment phase before being tapered off the study drug. 

Patients were allowed to remain on medications without D2-receptor blocking activity for anxiety, OCD, and ADHD if the dosage was stable for 4 weeks before screening and not specifically prescribed for tics. 

A mixed model for repeated measures was used to assess changes in several scales administered at baseline and at weeks 4, 6, 8, and 12: the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Teacher and Parent Rating Scale (SNAP-IV); Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale; Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), and Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised (CDRS-R). 

In patients with a co-occurring psychiatric condition, no significant differences were found over time between ecopipam and placebo in terms of SNAP-IV (-4.4; P = .45), Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (1.0; P = .62), CDRS-R (-3.2; P = .65), or CY-BOCS (-0.7; P = .76) scores.

For ADHD, the most frequent comorbidity, scores trended lower in the ecopipam group but were not significantly different from those in the placebo group. “We found no evidence that ecopipam worsened ADHD symptoms,” Dr. Gilbert said.
 

No Weight Gain

Suicidal ideation was reported during the dosing period in eight patients in the placebo group and none in the ecopipam group. One patient treated with ecopipam had multiple depressive episodes and dropped out of the study on day 79. Ecopipam was discontinued in another patient because of anxiety. 

Notably, there was more weight gain in the placebo group than in the ecopipam group (2.4 kg vs 1.8 kg) by 12 weeks. No shifts from baseline were seen in blood glucose, A1c, total cholesterol, or triglycerides in either group. 

The lack of weight gain with ecopipam is important, Dr. Gilbert stressed. “Medicines that block D2 so often cause weight gain, and a lot of our patients, unfortunately, can be heavier already,” he explained. “We don’t want to make that worse or put them at a long-term risk of type 2 diabetes.”  

For patients with more severe disease, we really “do need something else besides D2-blockers in our tool kit,” he added. 

Commenting on the study, Tanya Simuni, MD, co-moderator of the session and director of the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the aim of assessing D1-directed medications is to reduce the negative impact of traditional antipsychotics with a theoretical benefit on hyperkinetic movement.

But the most important thing that they’ve shown is that “there was no negative effect, no liability for the nonmotor manifestations of Tourette’s. That is important because Tourette’s is not a pure motor syndrome, and psychiatric manifestations in a lot of cases are associated with more disease-related quality of life impairment compared to the motor manifestations,” said Dr. Simuni.

That said, she noted, the “ideal drug would be the one that would have benefit for both motor and nonmotor domains.” 
 

Multiple Agents in the Pipeline 

“The neuropharmacology of Tourette syndrome has long remained stagnant, and most existing treatments often fail to balance efficacy with tolerability, underscoring the urgent need for newer therapeutics,” Christos Ganos, MD, professor of neurology, University of Toronto, said in a press release.

He noted that three studies have been published on ecopipam since 2014: an 8-week, open-label trial in adults with Tourette syndrome, a 4-week, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 38 children with Tourette syndrome, and the 12-week D1AMOND trial.

“These studies demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in tics, without relevant safety concerns or changes in Tourette syndrome-typical neuropsychiatric measures, as also shown by the abstract highlighted here,” Dr. Ganos said. 

“This emerging body of research provides a solid foundation for introducing ecopipam as a novel pharmacological agent to treat tics and may motivate further work, both on the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of tic disorders and their associations.”

A single-arm, phase 3 trial is currently underway at 58 centers in North America and Europe investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of ecopipam over 24 months in 150 children, adolescents, and adults with Tourette syndrome. The study is expected to be completed in 2027.

Several other new medications are also under investigation including the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT2) inhibitors tetrabenazine, deutetrabenazine, and valbenazine; the PEDE10A inhibitor gemlapodect; the allopregnanolone antagonist sepranolone; and SCI-110, which combines dronabinol (the synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol) and the endocannabinoid palmitoylethanolamide.

The study was funded by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert’s institution received research support from Emalex Biosciences and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. Gilbert has received publishing royalties from a healthcare-related publication; compensation for serving as a medical expert with Teladoc; Advanced Medical; and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, US Department of Health and Human Services. Simuni reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ganos has received honoraria for educational activities from the Movement Disorder Society and academic research support from VolkswagenStiftung. 
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The investigational agent ecopipam reduces tic severity in children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome without exacerbating common psychiatric comorbidities, results of a new analysis suggest.

As previously reported, the first-in-class dopamine-1 (D1) receptor antagonist reduced the primary endpoint of tic severity scores by 30% compared with placebo among 149 patients in the 12-week, phase 2b D1AMOND trial. 

What was unknown, however, is whether ecopipam would affect the comorbidities of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and depression that were present in two thirds of participants.

The two key findings in this post hoc analysis were “first, that patients with a nonmotor diagnosis like depression or ADHD did not do any worse in terms of tic efficacy; and second, we didn’t find any evidence that any of the nonmotor symptoms of Tourette’s got worse with ecopipam,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology at University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Gilbert presented the results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024. 
 

No Worsening of ADHD Symptoms

Tourette syndrome affects approximately 1 in 160 children between 5 and 17 years of age in the United States, data from the Tourette Association of America show. Research has shown that 85% of patients with Tourette syndrome will have a co-occurring psychiatric condition. 

Guidelines recommend Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT) as first-line treatment for Tourette syndrome, but cost and access are barriers. The only currently approved medications to treat Tourette syndrome are antipsychotics that act on the D2 receptor, but their use is limited by the potential for weight gain, metabolic changes, drug-induced movement disorders, and risk for suicidality, said Dr. Gilbert. 

The D1AMOND study randomly assigned patients aged 6-17 years with Tourette syndrome and a Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Scale score of at least 20 to receive a target steady-state dose of 2 mg/kg/d of oral ecopipam or placebo for a 4-week titration period, followed by an 8-week treatment phase before being tapered off the study drug. 

Patients were allowed to remain on medications without D2-receptor blocking activity for anxiety, OCD, and ADHD if the dosage was stable for 4 weeks before screening and not specifically prescribed for tics. 

A mixed model for repeated measures was used to assess changes in several scales administered at baseline and at weeks 4, 6, 8, and 12: the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Teacher and Parent Rating Scale (SNAP-IV); Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale; Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), and Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised (CDRS-R). 

In patients with a co-occurring psychiatric condition, no significant differences were found over time between ecopipam and placebo in terms of SNAP-IV (-4.4; P = .45), Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (1.0; P = .62), CDRS-R (-3.2; P = .65), or CY-BOCS (-0.7; P = .76) scores.

For ADHD, the most frequent comorbidity, scores trended lower in the ecopipam group but were not significantly different from those in the placebo group. “We found no evidence that ecopipam worsened ADHD symptoms,” Dr. Gilbert said.
 

No Weight Gain

Suicidal ideation was reported during the dosing period in eight patients in the placebo group and none in the ecopipam group. One patient treated with ecopipam had multiple depressive episodes and dropped out of the study on day 79. Ecopipam was discontinued in another patient because of anxiety. 

Notably, there was more weight gain in the placebo group than in the ecopipam group (2.4 kg vs 1.8 kg) by 12 weeks. No shifts from baseline were seen in blood glucose, A1c, total cholesterol, or triglycerides in either group. 

The lack of weight gain with ecopipam is important, Dr. Gilbert stressed. “Medicines that block D2 so often cause weight gain, and a lot of our patients, unfortunately, can be heavier already,” he explained. “We don’t want to make that worse or put them at a long-term risk of type 2 diabetes.”  

For patients with more severe disease, we really “do need something else besides D2-blockers in our tool kit,” he added. 

Commenting on the study, Tanya Simuni, MD, co-moderator of the session and director of the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the aim of assessing D1-directed medications is to reduce the negative impact of traditional antipsychotics with a theoretical benefit on hyperkinetic movement.

But the most important thing that they’ve shown is that “there was no negative effect, no liability for the nonmotor manifestations of Tourette’s. That is important because Tourette’s is not a pure motor syndrome, and psychiatric manifestations in a lot of cases are associated with more disease-related quality of life impairment compared to the motor manifestations,” said Dr. Simuni.

That said, she noted, the “ideal drug would be the one that would have benefit for both motor and nonmotor domains.” 
 

Multiple Agents in the Pipeline 

“The neuropharmacology of Tourette syndrome has long remained stagnant, and most existing treatments often fail to balance efficacy with tolerability, underscoring the urgent need for newer therapeutics,” Christos Ganos, MD, professor of neurology, University of Toronto, said in a press release.

He noted that three studies have been published on ecopipam since 2014: an 8-week, open-label trial in adults with Tourette syndrome, a 4-week, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 38 children with Tourette syndrome, and the 12-week D1AMOND trial.

“These studies demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in tics, without relevant safety concerns or changes in Tourette syndrome-typical neuropsychiatric measures, as also shown by the abstract highlighted here,” Dr. Ganos said. 

“This emerging body of research provides a solid foundation for introducing ecopipam as a novel pharmacological agent to treat tics and may motivate further work, both on the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of tic disorders and their associations.”

A single-arm, phase 3 trial is currently underway at 58 centers in North America and Europe investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of ecopipam over 24 months in 150 children, adolescents, and adults with Tourette syndrome. The study is expected to be completed in 2027.

Several other new medications are also under investigation including the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT2) inhibitors tetrabenazine, deutetrabenazine, and valbenazine; the PEDE10A inhibitor gemlapodect; the allopregnanolone antagonist sepranolone; and SCI-110, which combines dronabinol (the synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol) and the endocannabinoid palmitoylethanolamide.

The study was funded by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert’s institution received research support from Emalex Biosciences and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. Gilbert has received publishing royalties from a healthcare-related publication; compensation for serving as a medical expert with Teladoc; Advanced Medical; and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, US Department of Health and Human Services. Simuni reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ganos has received honoraria for educational activities from the Movement Disorder Society and academic research support from VolkswagenStiftung. 
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — The investigational agent ecopipam reduces tic severity in children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome without exacerbating common psychiatric comorbidities, results of a new analysis suggest.

As previously reported, the first-in-class dopamine-1 (D1) receptor antagonist reduced the primary endpoint of tic severity scores by 30% compared with placebo among 149 patients in the 12-week, phase 2b D1AMOND trial. 

What was unknown, however, is whether ecopipam would affect the comorbidities of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and depression that were present in two thirds of participants.

The two key findings in this post hoc analysis were “first, that patients with a nonmotor diagnosis like depression or ADHD did not do any worse in terms of tic efficacy; and second, we didn’t find any evidence that any of the nonmotor symptoms of Tourette’s got worse with ecopipam,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology at University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Gilbert presented the results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024. 
 

No Worsening of ADHD Symptoms

Tourette syndrome affects approximately 1 in 160 children between 5 and 17 years of age in the United States, data from the Tourette Association of America show. Research has shown that 85% of patients with Tourette syndrome will have a co-occurring psychiatric condition. 

Guidelines recommend Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT) as first-line treatment for Tourette syndrome, but cost and access are barriers. The only currently approved medications to treat Tourette syndrome are antipsychotics that act on the D2 receptor, but their use is limited by the potential for weight gain, metabolic changes, drug-induced movement disorders, and risk for suicidality, said Dr. Gilbert. 

The D1AMOND study randomly assigned patients aged 6-17 years with Tourette syndrome and a Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Scale score of at least 20 to receive a target steady-state dose of 2 mg/kg/d of oral ecopipam or placebo for a 4-week titration period, followed by an 8-week treatment phase before being tapered off the study drug. 

Patients were allowed to remain on medications without D2-receptor blocking activity for anxiety, OCD, and ADHD if the dosage was stable for 4 weeks before screening and not specifically prescribed for tics. 

A mixed model for repeated measures was used to assess changes in several scales administered at baseline and at weeks 4, 6, 8, and 12: the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Teacher and Parent Rating Scale (SNAP-IV); Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale; Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), and Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised (CDRS-R). 

In patients with a co-occurring psychiatric condition, no significant differences were found over time between ecopipam and placebo in terms of SNAP-IV (-4.4; P = .45), Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (1.0; P = .62), CDRS-R (-3.2; P = .65), or CY-BOCS (-0.7; P = .76) scores.

For ADHD, the most frequent comorbidity, scores trended lower in the ecopipam group but were not significantly different from those in the placebo group. “We found no evidence that ecopipam worsened ADHD symptoms,” Dr. Gilbert said.
 

No Weight Gain

Suicidal ideation was reported during the dosing period in eight patients in the placebo group and none in the ecopipam group. One patient treated with ecopipam had multiple depressive episodes and dropped out of the study on day 79. Ecopipam was discontinued in another patient because of anxiety. 

Notably, there was more weight gain in the placebo group than in the ecopipam group (2.4 kg vs 1.8 kg) by 12 weeks. No shifts from baseline were seen in blood glucose, A1c, total cholesterol, or triglycerides in either group. 

The lack of weight gain with ecopipam is important, Dr. Gilbert stressed. “Medicines that block D2 so often cause weight gain, and a lot of our patients, unfortunately, can be heavier already,” he explained. “We don’t want to make that worse or put them at a long-term risk of type 2 diabetes.”  

For patients with more severe disease, we really “do need something else besides D2-blockers in our tool kit,” he added. 

Commenting on the study, Tanya Simuni, MD, co-moderator of the session and director of the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the aim of assessing D1-directed medications is to reduce the negative impact of traditional antipsychotics with a theoretical benefit on hyperkinetic movement.

But the most important thing that they’ve shown is that “there was no negative effect, no liability for the nonmotor manifestations of Tourette’s. That is important because Tourette’s is not a pure motor syndrome, and psychiatric manifestations in a lot of cases are associated with more disease-related quality of life impairment compared to the motor manifestations,” said Dr. Simuni.

That said, she noted, the “ideal drug would be the one that would have benefit for both motor and nonmotor domains.” 
 

Multiple Agents in the Pipeline 

“The neuropharmacology of Tourette syndrome has long remained stagnant, and most existing treatments often fail to balance efficacy with tolerability, underscoring the urgent need for newer therapeutics,” Christos Ganos, MD, professor of neurology, University of Toronto, said in a press release.

He noted that three studies have been published on ecopipam since 2014: an 8-week, open-label trial in adults with Tourette syndrome, a 4-week, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 38 children with Tourette syndrome, and the 12-week D1AMOND trial.

“These studies demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in tics, without relevant safety concerns or changes in Tourette syndrome-typical neuropsychiatric measures, as also shown by the abstract highlighted here,” Dr. Ganos said. 

“This emerging body of research provides a solid foundation for introducing ecopipam as a novel pharmacological agent to treat tics and may motivate further work, both on the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of tic disorders and their associations.”

A single-arm, phase 3 trial is currently underway at 58 centers in North America and Europe investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of ecopipam over 24 months in 150 children, adolescents, and adults with Tourette syndrome. The study is expected to be completed in 2027.

Several other new medications are also under investigation including the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT2) inhibitors tetrabenazine, deutetrabenazine, and valbenazine; the PEDE10A inhibitor gemlapodect; the allopregnanolone antagonist sepranolone; and SCI-110, which combines dronabinol (the synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol) and the endocannabinoid palmitoylethanolamide.

The study was funded by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert’s institution received research support from Emalex Biosciences and PTC Therapeutics. Dr. Gilbert has received publishing royalties from a healthcare-related publication; compensation for serving as a medical expert with Teladoc; Advanced Medical; and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, US Department of Health and Human Services. Simuni reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ganos has received honoraria for educational activities from the Movement Disorder Society and academic research support from VolkswagenStiftung. 
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.