Neil Osterweil

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), patients who received ibrutinib plus venetoclax for a duration determined by disease characteristics rather than a fixed schedule had significantly better progression-free and overall survival compared with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, a new phase-3 analysis shows.

The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.

Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.

The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.

“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Adaptive Trial

The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.

At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR. 

In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.

After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).

Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).

In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died. 

The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31). 

At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.

The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.

A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.

The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.

The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.

This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.

“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.

In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”

This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.

The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), patients who received ibrutinib plus venetoclax for a duration determined by disease characteristics rather than a fixed schedule had significantly better progression-free and overall survival compared with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, a new phase-3 analysis shows.

The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.

Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.

The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.

“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Adaptive Trial

The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.

At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR. 

In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.

After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).

Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).

In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died. 

The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31). 

At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.

The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.

A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.

The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.

The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.

This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.

“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.

In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”

This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.

The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), patients who received ibrutinib plus venetoclax for a duration determined by disease characteristics rather than a fixed schedule had significantly better progression-free and overall survival compared with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, a new phase-3 analysis shows.

The targeted therapy combination was also associated with better progression-free survival among patients with CLL with worse prognostic features, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) unmutated disease and cytogenetic abnormalities, such as the 11q deletion, trisomy 12, and 13q deletion.

Personalizing treatment duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax, as determined by measurable residual disease (MRD), allowed more than half of patients assigned to the combination therapy to stop therapy by 3 years because they had achieved MRD negativity, reported Peter Hillmen, MBChB, PhD, from the Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, United Kingdom.

The shorter course of therapy could help to ameliorate toxicities and lower the risk for the development of drug-resistant disease, he said.

“This is the first trial to show that an MRD-guided approach with treatment beyond [MRD] negativity has a significant advantage over chemoimmunotherapy, both in terms of [progression-free] and overall survival. Over 90% of patients achieve an MRD-negative in this combination in the peripheral blood,” said Dr. Hillmen in a media briefing prior to his presentation of the data in an oral abstract session here at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study results were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Adaptive Trial

The FLAIR study is a phase 3 open-label platform trial that initially compared ibrutinib-rituximab with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) in patients with untreated CLL. However, in 2017 the trial was adapted to include both an ibrutinib monotherapy and an ibrutinib-venetoclax arm with therapy duration determined by MRD.

At ASH 2023, Dr. Hillmen presented data from an interim analysis of 523 patients comparing ibrutinib-venetoclax with FCR. 

In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg daily, with venetoclax added after 2 months, beginning with a 20-mg dose ramped up to 400 mg in a weekly dose-escalation schedule. The combination could be given for 2-6 years, depending on MRD responses. FCR was delivered in up to six cycles of 28 days each. Two thirds of patients assigned to FCR completed all six cycles.

After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 12 patients (4.6%) randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had disease progression or died compared with 75 patients (28.5%) assigned to FCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival with ibrutinib-venetoclax was 97.2%, compared with 76.8% with FCR, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death with the targeted therapy combination of 0.13 (P <.001).

Among patients with unmutated IGHV, the combination led to improved progression-free survival compared with FCR (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.07); for patients with mutated IGHV, however, the combination did not improve progression-free survival (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.38).

In all, eight patients (3.5%) assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 23 assigned to FCR (9.5%) died. 

The 3-year overall survival rates were 98% in the targeted therapy group vs 93% in the FCR group (HR for progression or death, 0.31). 

At 2 years, 52.4% of patients assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax had undetectable MRD in bone marrow compared with 49.8% with FCR. At 5 years, the respective percentages for MRD in bone marrow were 65.9% vs 49.8% and 92.7% vs 67.9% for MRD in peripheral blood.

The safety analysis showed higher rates of blood and lymphatic system disorders with FCR, whereas cardiac, metabolic/nutrition disorders, and eye disorders occurred more frequent with ibrutinib-venetoclax.

A total of 24 secondary cancers were diagnosed in 17 patients randomly assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax and 45 secondary cancers among 34 patients randomly assigned to FCR. One patient assigned to ibrutinib-venetoclax developed myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), as did eight patients assigned to FCR. One patient in the ibrutinib-venetoclax arm and four patients in the FCR arm had Richter’s transformation.

The incidence rate for other cancers was 2.6 per 100 person-years with ibrutinib-venetoclax compared with 5.4 per 100 person-years with FCR.

The most frequently occurring cancers in each arm were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes, AML lymphoma, and prostate/urologic cancers was higher among patients on FCR.

This research “unequivocally shows the superiority of targeted therapy over traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy,” commented briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

The ibrutinib-venetoclax combination has the potential to reduce the incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to CLL therapy, Dr. Sekeres suggested.

“As someone who specializes in leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes, I have the feeling I won’t be seeing these CLL patients in my clinic — years after being treated for CLL — much longer,” he said.

In an interview with this news organization, Lee Greenberger, PhD, said that “I think that duration-adapted therapy is a great story. Using MRD negativity is a perfectly justified way, I think, to go about a new combination that’s going to be really potent for CLL patients and probably give them many years of treatment and then to get off the drug, because ultimately the goal is to get cures.”

This combination, though highly efficacious, is unlikely to be curative; however, because even when MRD is undetectable, “it will come back,” said Dr. Greenberger, chief scientific officer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Dr. Greenberger added that MRD testing of bone marrow, which provides a more detailed picture of MRD status than testing of peripheral blood, is feasible in academic medical centers but may be a barrier to MRD-adapted therapy in community oncology practices.

The FLAIR study is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and AbbVie. Dr. Hillmen disclosed employment and equity participation with Apellis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sekeres disclosed board activities for Geron, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and owner of stock options Kurome. Dr. Greenberger reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — A newly approved gene therapy product for sickle cell disease, lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel, marketed as Lyfgenia), led to durable disease remissions for up to 5 years and almost complete elimination of dangerous and debilitating vaso-occlusive events, according to results of a long-term follow-up study.

More specifically, a single infusion of lovo-cel led to complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events in 88% of patients, with 94% achieving complete resolution of severe events. All 10 adolescents in the study achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events. Most patients remained free of vaso-occlusive events at their last follow-up.

“This is a one-time, truly transformative treatment with lovo-cel,” lead author Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The gene therapy can essentially eliminate vaso-occlusive events in patients with sickle cell disease and lead to normal hemoglobin levels, Dr. Kanter added. 

For “anybody who has rounded on the inpatient floor and taken care of adolescents admitted with a pain crisis multiple times a year,” seeing these results “is so compelling,” commented Sarah O’Brien, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who moderated the briefing but was not involved in the study.
 

One and Done

Sickle cell disease, a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder, affects an estimated 100,000 people in the US. 

People with the condition have a mutation in hemoglobin, which causes red blood cells to develop an abnormal sickle shape. These sickled cells block the flow of blood, ultimately depriving tissues of oxygen and leading to organ damage and severe pain, known as vaso-occlusive events. 

On Dec. 8, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved lovo-cel for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease alongside another gene-editing therapy called exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics). The two therapies use different gene-editing approaches — exa-cel is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR while lovo-cel uses a lentiviral vector.

Both are one-time, single-dose cell-based gene therapies.

With lovo-cel, patients first undergo a transfusion regimen and myeloablative conditioning with busulfan to collect cells that can then be genetically modified. A patient’s harvested cells are modified with an anti-sickling version of hemoglobin A, HbAT87Q. Patients then receive an infusion of these edited cells and remain in the hospital during engraftment and reconstitution.

Dr. Kanter presented long-term follow-up data on 47 patients enrolled in phase 1/2 and phase 3 studies of lovo-cel. 

All patients had stable HbAT87Q levels from 6 months to their last follow-up at a median of 35.5 months. 

Most patients achieved a durable globin response through their final follow-up visit.

Among the 34 evaluable patients, 88% had complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6 to 18 months after their infusion, including all 10 adolescent patients. Almost all patients (94%) achieved complete resolution of serious vaso-occlusive events. 

In the few patients who experienced posttreatment vaso-occlusive events, these individuals still achieved major reductions in hospital admissions and hospital days.

Among 20 patients followed for at least 3 years, more than half had clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity, pain interference, and fatigue.

Most treatment-related adverse events occurred within 1 year of lovo-cel infusions and were primarily related to busulfan conditioning. No cases of veno-occlusive liver disease, graft failure, or graft vs host disease occurred, and patients did not have complications related to the viral vector. No patients who had a history of stroke prior to lovo-cel therapy experienced a post-therapy stroke. 

One patient died at baseline from significant cardiopulmonary disease related to sickle cell disease, but the death was considered unrelated to lovo-cel therapy.

To see a one-time treatment that essentially eradicates vaso-occlusive events is “really unparalleled,” said Steven Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, who presented data on a different study at the briefing.

However, Dr. Kanter noted, “it’s important to highlight that many of these individuals come into this therapy with significant disease and end-organ complications, and this will be something we will really need to follow long-term to understand how much this therapy can stabilize or reverse these complications.”

The studies were funded by bluebird bio. Dr. Kanter disclosed honoraria from the company and consulting/advising activities and receipt of research funding from multiple other entities. Dr. O’Brien disclosed consultancy for AstraZeneca, honoraria from Pharmacosmos, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Pipe disclosed consulting activities from multiple companies, not including bluebird bio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A newly approved gene therapy product for sickle cell disease, lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel, marketed as Lyfgenia), led to durable disease remissions for up to 5 years and almost complete elimination of dangerous and debilitating vaso-occlusive events, according to results of a long-term follow-up study.

More specifically, a single infusion of lovo-cel led to complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events in 88% of patients, with 94% achieving complete resolution of severe events. All 10 adolescents in the study achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events. Most patients remained free of vaso-occlusive events at their last follow-up.

“This is a one-time, truly transformative treatment with lovo-cel,” lead author Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The gene therapy can essentially eliminate vaso-occlusive events in patients with sickle cell disease and lead to normal hemoglobin levels, Dr. Kanter added. 

For “anybody who has rounded on the inpatient floor and taken care of adolescents admitted with a pain crisis multiple times a year,” seeing these results “is so compelling,” commented Sarah O’Brien, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who moderated the briefing but was not involved in the study.
 

One and Done

Sickle cell disease, a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder, affects an estimated 100,000 people in the US. 

People with the condition have a mutation in hemoglobin, which causes red blood cells to develop an abnormal sickle shape. These sickled cells block the flow of blood, ultimately depriving tissues of oxygen and leading to organ damage and severe pain, known as vaso-occlusive events. 

On Dec. 8, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved lovo-cel for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease alongside another gene-editing therapy called exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics). The two therapies use different gene-editing approaches — exa-cel is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR while lovo-cel uses a lentiviral vector.

Both are one-time, single-dose cell-based gene therapies.

With lovo-cel, patients first undergo a transfusion regimen and myeloablative conditioning with busulfan to collect cells that can then be genetically modified. A patient’s harvested cells are modified with an anti-sickling version of hemoglobin A, HbAT87Q. Patients then receive an infusion of these edited cells and remain in the hospital during engraftment and reconstitution.

Dr. Kanter presented long-term follow-up data on 47 patients enrolled in phase 1/2 and phase 3 studies of lovo-cel. 

All patients had stable HbAT87Q levels from 6 months to their last follow-up at a median of 35.5 months. 

Most patients achieved a durable globin response through their final follow-up visit.

Among the 34 evaluable patients, 88% had complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6 to 18 months after their infusion, including all 10 adolescent patients. Almost all patients (94%) achieved complete resolution of serious vaso-occlusive events. 

In the few patients who experienced posttreatment vaso-occlusive events, these individuals still achieved major reductions in hospital admissions and hospital days.

Among 20 patients followed for at least 3 years, more than half had clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity, pain interference, and fatigue.

Most treatment-related adverse events occurred within 1 year of lovo-cel infusions and were primarily related to busulfan conditioning. No cases of veno-occlusive liver disease, graft failure, or graft vs host disease occurred, and patients did not have complications related to the viral vector. No patients who had a history of stroke prior to lovo-cel therapy experienced a post-therapy stroke. 

One patient died at baseline from significant cardiopulmonary disease related to sickle cell disease, but the death was considered unrelated to lovo-cel therapy.

To see a one-time treatment that essentially eradicates vaso-occlusive events is “really unparalleled,” said Steven Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, who presented data on a different study at the briefing.

However, Dr. Kanter noted, “it’s important to highlight that many of these individuals come into this therapy with significant disease and end-organ complications, and this will be something we will really need to follow long-term to understand how much this therapy can stabilize or reverse these complications.”

The studies were funded by bluebird bio. Dr. Kanter disclosed honoraria from the company and consulting/advising activities and receipt of research funding from multiple other entities. Dr. O’Brien disclosed consultancy for AstraZeneca, honoraria from Pharmacosmos, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Pipe disclosed consulting activities from multiple companies, not including bluebird bio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A newly approved gene therapy product for sickle cell disease, lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel, marketed as Lyfgenia), led to durable disease remissions for up to 5 years and almost complete elimination of dangerous and debilitating vaso-occlusive events, according to results of a long-term follow-up study.

More specifically, a single infusion of lovo-cel led to complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events in 88% of patients, with 94% achieving complete resolution of severe events. All 10 adolescents in the study achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events. Most patients remained free of vaso-occlusive events at their last follow-up.

“This is a one-time, truly transformative treatment with lovo-cel,” lead author Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, said in a media briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The gene therapy can essentially eliminate vaso-occlusive events in patients with sickle cell disease and lead to normal hemoglobin levels, Dr. Kanter added. 

For “anybody who has rounded on the inpatient floor and taken care of adolescents admitted with a pain crisis multiple times a year,” seeing these results “is so compelling,” commented Sarah O’Brien, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who moderated the briefing but was not involved in the study.
 

One and Done

Sickle cell disease, a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder, affects an estimated 100,000 people in the US. 

People with the condition have a mutation in hemoglobin, which causes red blood cells to develop an abnormal sickle shape. These sickled cells block the flow of blood, ultimately depriving tissues of oxygen and leading to organ damage and severe pain, known as vaso-occlusive events. 

On Dec. 8, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved lovo-cel for patients aged 12 years or older with severe sickle cell disease alongside another gene-editing therapy called exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics). The two therapies use different gene-editing approaches — exa-cel is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR while lovo-cel uses a lentiviral vector.

Both are one-time, single-dose cell-based gene therapies.

With lovo-cel, patients first undergo a transfusion regimen and myeloablative conditioning with busulfan to collect cells that can then be genetically modified. A patient’s harvested cells are modified with an anti-sickling version of hemoglobin A, HbAT87Q. Patients then receive an infusion of these edited cells and remain in the hospital during engraftment and reconstitution.

Dr. Kanter presented long-term follow-up data on 47 patients enrolled in phase 1/2 and phase 3 studies of lovo-cel. 

All patients had stable HbAT87Q levels from 6 months to their last follow-up at a median of 35.5 months. 

Most patients achieved a durable globin response through their final follow-up visit.

Among the 34 evaluable patients, 88% had complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6 to 18 months after their infusion, including all 10 adolescent patients. Almost all patients (94%) achieved complete resolution of serious vaso-occlusive events. 

In the few patients who experienced posttreatment vaso-occlusive events, these individuals still achieved major reductions in hospital admissions and hospital days.

Among 20 patients followed for at least 3 years, more than half had clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity, pain interference, and fatigue.

Most treatment-related adverse events occurred within 1 year of lovo-cel infusions and were primarily related to busulfan conditioning. No cases of veno-occlusive liver disease, graft failure, or graft vs host disease occurred, and patients did not have complications related to the viral vector. No patients who had a history of stroke prior to lovo-cel therapy experienced a post-therapy stroke. 

One patient died at baseline from significant cardiopulmonary disease related to sickle cell disease, but the death was considered unrelated to lovo-cel therapy.

To see a one-time treatment that essentially eradicates vaso-occlusive events is “really unparalleled,” said Steven Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, who presented data on a different study at the briefing.

However, Dr. Kanter noted, “it’s important to highlight that many of these individuals come into this therapy with significant disease and end-organ complications, and this will be something we will really need to follow long-term to understand how much this therapy can stabilize or reverse these complications.”

The studies were funded by bluebird bio. Dr. Kanter disclosed honoraria from the company and consulting/advising activities and receipt of research funding from multiple other entities. Dr. O’Brien disclosed consultancy for AstraZeneca, honoraria from Pharmacosmos, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Pipe disclosed consulting activities from multiple companies, not including bluebird bio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.