Conference Coverage

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — For patients with so-called “good-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who did not have radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant tamoxifen reduced their overall risks for invasive recurrence, but not their risks for recurrence in either the same or contralateral breast.

These findings come from an exploratory analysis of combined data from two clinical trials. They suggest that, for this select group of patients, the choice to forgo radiation following definitive surgery may be an acceptable option, assuming that they follow a full course of endocrine therapy.

“In the absence of survival impact for adjuvant therapy, the decision to recommend radiation therapy or endocrine therapy should be part of a shared decision process, and I think that this data helps us provide clearer data points to our patients to help them make choices between endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in the setting of good-risk [ductal carcinoma in situ],” said Jean L. Wright, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She presented the findings in an oral abstract session and media briefing at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

 

Trial Results Combined

Wright and colleagues looked at pooled data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with low- or intermediate-grade DCIS with tumor size no larger than 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2 lesions, and with surgical margins ≥ 3 mm.

The trials included NRG/RTOG 9804, with 317 patients who fit the “good-risk category,” and ECOG-ACRIN E5194, which included a cohort of 561 patients that met the good-risk definition used for the exploratory analysis.

In each trial, tamoxifen use was optional, and choices were tracked. In the NRG/RTOG trial, 66% of patients used tamoxifen and 34% did not. The respective percentages in the ECOG/ACRIN trial were 30% and 70%.

The majority of patients were adherent to the 5-year prescribed course of tamoxifen, Wright said.

 

Analysis Details

In the combined data, the median age of patients who used tamoxifen vs who did not use tamoxifen was 58 vs 61 years.

In all, 23% of women in both the tamoxifen yes or no groups were premenopausal, with the remainder either postmenopausal or of unknown menopausal status.

After a median follow-up of 14.85 years, the rate of 15-year ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) was 19% for patients who did not receive tamoxifen vs 11.4% for those who did. This translated into a hazard ratio for IBR on tamoxifen of 0.52 (P = .001).

Tamoxifen also reduced the risk for invasive recurrence in the same breast, with a 15-year invasive IBR rate of 11.5% in the no tamoxifen group vs 6% in the yes tamoxifen group.

However, as noted before, tamoxifen use was not associated with significant reduction in the risk for noninvasive DCIS recurrence in the same breast, as evidenced by a 15-year DCIS IBR rate of 8.1% without tamoxifen and 5.5% with tamoxifen, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

 

A Surprising Result

One finding from the data that seemed to defy clinical wisdom was that tamoxifen use did not appear to significantly reduce the risk for events in the other breast. The 15-year rate of contralateral breast events was 8.8% in the no-tamoxifen group vs 5.6% in the yes tamoxifen group, a difference that was not statically significant.

“It was surprising that there was so little effect on contralateral disease,” commented Elinor Sawyer, MBBS, PhD, the invited discussant.

“But I think it’s really important, this decrease in ipsilateral invasive recurrence [with tamoxifen] because there are studies such as the Sloane study from the United Kingdom that show that if you develop an invasive recurrence after DCIS, you have a worse survival than those who develop a pure DCIS recurrence,” she said.

At the media briefing held prior to Wright’s presentation, moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at UT Health San Antonio in Texas, also said that she found it surprising that tamoxifen did not reduce risk for contralateral breast cancer “since every study that we’ve done has shown that.”

“I also found that result a little bit surprising,” Wright agreed.

“I think the main feature that we want to focus on is that this was a group of patients with a very clear inclusion criteria of this good-risk DCIS, and even though the definition of good-risk DCIS included patients with [tumors] up to 2.5 cm in DCIS, we saw that, in reality, the patients enrolled had very small DCIS. So I’m wondering if it’s perhaps that it’s related to the fact that patients that were enrolled in these studies had really low-risk features and perhaps just had a lower risk of contralateral breast events as compared to a broader population of patients with DCIS,” she said.

The analysis by Wright and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Wright reported receiving honoraria from ASTRO and PER. Sawyer disclosed receiving grants/research support from Pfizer, Seagen, and IQIVIA. Kaklamani disclosed serving as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, and Novartis and receiving research support from Eisai.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Second-line treatment with imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared with standard endocrine monotherapy in patients with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer who had ESR1 mutations, according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.

This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.

Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”

The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.

First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.

Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.

The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.

The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.

Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.

When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.

Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.

The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).

Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.

All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.

EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.

A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.

Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.

She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.

“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.

Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.

Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypertension, and cirrhosis, certain antihypertensive medications may lead to increased risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to new research.

In particular, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a higher risk of developing HCC, compared with not using these medications.

About half of patients with MASLD have hypertension, and the use of antihypertensives in these patients is beneficial to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and complications related to MASLD, said lead author Ahmed Elhariri, MD, a research fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who conducted the study as a research assistant in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, also in Houston.

However, previous studies have suggested a possible link between these medications and cancer development, “especially CCBs and breast and lung cancer,” said Elhariri, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

 

Analyzing Potential Risks

In a case-control study, Elhariri and colleagues analyzed antihypertensive medication use among patients with MASLD-induced HCC, as defined by histology or radiology based on the Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System, and control patients with MASLD but without HCC.

Between 2020 and 2024, the research team recruited 153 newly diagnosed HCC cases with different etiologies and 170 patients with MASLD but without HCC from Baylor College of Medicine’s outpatient clinics. For this study, they selected 47 age- and sex-matched pairs, all of whom had cirrhosis. Only those with a history of hypertension were included, however. Data on risk factors of metabolic syndrome (including diabetes) and HCC were collected, along with details about medication use such as metformin and statins.

A total of 42 patients with MASLD and HCC and 39 MASLD control individuals had a history of hypertension and were treated with antihypertensive medications. The mean age was 66.5 years for the HCC group and 63.5 years for the control group, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.1 for the HCC group and 31.7 for the control group.

After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, Hispanic ethnicity, and use of other medications, patients taking CCBs had an increased HCC risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.76), compared with those not taking CCBs. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs also had an increased HCC risk (OR, 2.54), compared with those not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

However, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in HCC risk among patients taking beta-blockers (OR, 0.87).

“Patients with fatty liver in the presence of metabolic syndrome, especially in the presence of cirrhosis and antihypertensives, need to have stricter surveillance for liver cancer,” Elhariri said.

“We need to carefully review blood pressure medications in patients with MASLD and cirrhosis,” he said. CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs can be replaced with beta-blockers, “which have been shown to reduce progression of cirrhosis-related complications.”

 

Considering Clinical Implications

“Although our study showed some association between the use of some commonly used antihypertensives and the risk for HCC in this high-risk population, it is based on data collected retrospectively on a small number of selected patients with advanced liver disease,” Elhariri noted.

The associations and underlying mechanisms should be studied in larger populations and prospective trials, he said. “Until we have more data with a significantly larger sample size, it’s premature to raise the concern in the general population.”

“The cardiovascular benefits of controlling blood pressure far outweigh the risk of liver cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome,” Elhariri added.

In ongoing studies, researchers are investigating ways to improve patient outcomes and reduce the negative effects of cirrhosis-associated complications among patients with MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), Muhammad Ali Butt, MD, a hepatology fellow at Beth Israel Lahey Hospital & Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

Butt, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented separate research on statins in MASH patients with cirrhosis, which indicated statistically significant decreases in portal hypertension, thrombosis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality.

“We know patients with MASLD- and MASH-associated cirrhosis commonly have other comorbidities, including high cardiovascular risks, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia,” he said. “All of these conditions indicate patients to be on other medications such as antihypertensives or statins. It’s important to know the role these medications play, especially given the high-risk profile of these patients.”

Elhariri and Butt reported no relevant disclosures.

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

NEW YORK CITY — Instructions on wound healing often involve disturbing photographs of severe diabetic ulcers, angry autoimmune blistering, and oozing lesions produced by uncommon genetic disorders, but whether or not they are dramatic, day-to-day dermatologic wound care relies on both the basics as well as novel approaches, according to a well-known wound treatment expert.

Wound repair is relevant to any specialty involved in invasive interventions, but dermatologists are at ground zero and should have commensurate skills, suggested Robert S. Kirsner, MD, PhD, director of the Wound Clinic at Jackson Memorial Hospital and chair of the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, Florida.

“We as a specialty make and repair more wounds than any other specialty,” said Kirsner, who provided data to make his point. In a table he showed, the number of wound repairs made annually by dermatologists was several-fold higher than surgeons, the next highest group, and the numbers declined rapidly from there. 

Speaking at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium – Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024, Kirsner offered an array of clinical pearls, reinforced some basics, and pointed to well-supported strategies he believes are too often overlooked.

Drugs Repurposed for Wound Healing

Of the clinical pearls, he spoke of the repurposing of several agents for wound care. His first example was the monoclonal antibody dupilumab, which inhibits interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling, to heal selected patients with leg ulcers. The potential of this drug for wound healing was based on a patient with a leg ulcer who presented with concomitant prurigo nodularis and biliary cirrhosis. When offered for the comorbidities, dupilumab provided a “dramatic” benefit with regard to the wound, according to Kirsner. 

The explanation for the response is that IL-4 and IL-13 have been found to be upregulated in some patients with leg ulcers. Based on numerous cases, Kirsner spoke of a phenotype of nonhealing leg ulcers from which elevated IL-4 and IL-13 can be isolated; these are the candidates for adding dupilumab to wound care, he said.

Topical beta-blockade is another example of a therapy repurposed for wound healing, according to Kirsner. He said beta-blockers are already a standard of care for burn wounds, but the mechanism is relevant in other wound types.

Several studies have looked at this phenomenon, with experimental studies showing that skin healing is impaired when beta-2 receptors are agonized but accelerated when blocked. 

 

Beta-Blockade Accelerates Wound Healing 

A recent review of these mechanisms in soft-tissue wound healing pointed to an anti-inflammatory effect, acceleration of keratinocyte migration, pro-reepithelization effects, and inhibition of bacterial virulence. Beta-blockers were first implicated as mediators of wound healing more than a decade ago, but Kirsner indicated that there is now more attention to this therapy within a comprehensive approach in difficult cases.

Although not specific to wound healing, the potential for teprotumumab to improve control of pretibial myxedema is another example of a repurposed therapy for a challenging skin disease. Teprotumumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptor, is approved for active thyroid eye disease, but Kirsner cited data showing compelling evidence of benefit in this cutaneous complication of Graves disease.

As for basics, Kirsner devoted some time to emphasizing the importance of compression therapy for improving leg vascularization. This is not something to just consider; rather, he thinks it is part of standard practice. “Compress all leg ulcers,” was Kirsner’s simple message.

Citing encouraging work in identifying targetable molecular events in wound healing, Kirsner suggested that treatment might be increasingly guided by biomarkers. He pointed to ongoing work to characterize wound exudate as a source of biomarkers.

“The discarded dressing contains a wealth of information,” he said, referring to cell types and proteins, such as growth factors. He thinks that the ongoing studies of exudate, which have shown that molecular processes detected at the periphery are often different than those at the focal site of injury, have substantial promise for identifying new treatment targets.

 

Virtual Reality to Address Pain

From a practical standpoint, Kirsner looked to a well-studied but still underused adjunct to wound debridement and surgical repair: the distraction offered by relatively low-priced virtual reality systems. He described it as a simple way to help patients keep their minds off the pain. It is not a new idea and has been studied for this use numerous times, and the evidence of benefit is essentially uniform, according to Kirsner.

He said effective and sophisticated systems can now be purchased for just hundreds of dollars, and no training is needed. Indeed, he said pediatric patients can typically explain how the system works if the clinician does not know.

“If you can enhance their experience [during wound repair], you can make their lives and your life better,” he said. 

Joshua Zeichner, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, concurred that the evidence supports this approach and is easy to do. “I am in favor of anything that improves the experience of the patient,” said Zeichner, who chaired the portion of the meeting during which Kirsner spoke. 

Kirsner said he practices what he preaches. “I routinely employ virtual reality for simple surgical procedures or processes that patients might find unpleasant,” he said. He acknowledged that clinicians might have heard this message before, but he believes those who have not yet introduced this into their practice should consider it.

Kirsner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Zeichner has reported serving as a consultant for Beiersdorf. 

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

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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