Andrew D. Bowser

PHILADELPHIA – Milrinone was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality, compared with dobutamine, in patients with heart failure who were receiving home inotropes as a bridge to advanced therapies, according to results of a large U.S. registry study.

The survival profile for milrinone was more favorable than that for dobutamine across various indications for use, including bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, and palliation.

The findings illustrate an “urgent need” for randomized trials that compare inotropic therapy strategies in patients with end-stage heart failure, said investigator Behram P. Mody, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

“Although [there is] the possibility of selection bias and there are confounding variables, this consistent finding may reflect a true benefit of milrinone,” Dr. Mody said in a presentation at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America

The evidence to support use of continuous outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy in stage D heart failure is limited and comes mainly from case series, and small, randomized trials demonstrating poor outcomes, Dr. Mody explained.

“Long-term survival associated with home inotropes in the modern era of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is poorly defined,” he said.

The retrospective study Dr. Mody presented at the meeting included 1,149 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29.9% women) who received continuous intravenous outpatient inotropic therapy (milrinone or dobutamine) from 2015 to 2017. This is possibly the largest body of data reported to date of patients receiving home inotropes, he said.

For the overall population, the estimated 1-year survival rate was 71% with milrinone, compared with 46% for dobutamine (P less than .0001), Dr. Mody reported. After adjusting for age, gender, weight, and indication, milrinone use was still significantly associated with lower mortality, compared with dobutamine (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.64; P less than .0001).

The survival benefit of milrinone over dobutamine was also significant in subsets of patients receiving home inotropes as bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, or palliation. A similar trend, though not statistically significant, was seen for inotropes used as a bridge to decision, he added.

Mortality was generally higher in patients receiving inotropes as palliation, as opposed to bridge therapy, with 1-year survival of 55.0% and 65.6%, respectively, and median survival of 461 days and 584 days.

These findings suggest home inotropes can be “beneficial” in patients with end-stage heart failure in an era of guideline-directed medical therapy and greater defibrillator use, Dr. Mody said.

“I’m not saying that it should replace left ventricular assist devices as the bridge to transplant,” he added, “but it could be an alternative strategy for our patients.”

No funding source was given. Dr. Mody had no disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mody BP et al. J Card Fail. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2019.07.021.

PHILADELPHIA – Milrinone was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality, compared with dobutamine, in patients with heart failure who were receiving home inotropes as a bridge to advanced therapies, according to results of a large U.S. registry study.

The survival profile for milrinone was more favorable than that for dobutamine across various indications for use, including bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, and palliation.

The findings illustrate an “urgent need” for randomized trials that compare inotropic therapy strategies in patients with end-stage heart failure, said investigator Behram P. Mody, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

“Although [there is] the possibility of selection bias and there are confounding variables, this consistent finding may reflect a true benefit of milrinone,” Dr. Mody said in a presentation at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America

The evidence to support use of continuous outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy in stage D heart failure is limited and comes mainly from case series, and small, randomized trials demonstrating poor outcomes, Dr. Mody explained.

“Long-term survival associated with home inotropes in the modern era of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is poorly defined,” he said.

The retrospective study Dr. Mody presented at the meeting included 1,149 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29.9% women) who received continuous intravenous outpatient inotropic therapy (milrinone or dobutamine) from 2015 to 2017. This is possibly the largest body of data reported to date of patients receiving home inotropes, he said.

For the overall population, the estimated 1-year survival rate was 71% with milrinone, compared with 46% for dobutamine (P less than .0001), Dr. Mody reported. After adjusting for age, gender, weight, and indication, milrinone use was still significantly associated with lower mortality, compared with dobutamine (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.64; P less than .0001).

The survival benefit of milrinone over dobutamine was also significant in subsets of patients receiving home inotropes as bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, or palliation. A similar trend, though not statistically significant, was seen for inotropes used as a bridge to decision, he added.

Mortality was generally higher in patients receiving inotropes as palliation, as opposed to bridge therapy, with 1-year survival of 55.0% and 65.6%, respectively, and median survival of 461 days and 584 days.

These findings suggest home inotropes can be “beneficial” in patients with end-stage heart failure in an era of guideline-directed medical therapy and greater defibrillator use, Dr. Mody said.

“I’m not saying that it should replace left ventricular assist devices as the bridge to transplant,” he added, “but it could be an alternative strategy for our patients.”

No funding source was given. Dr. Mody had no disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mody BP et al. J Card Fail. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2019.07.021.

PHILADELPHIA – Milrinone was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality, compared with dobutamine, in patients with heart failure who were receiving home inotropes as a bridge to advanced therapies, according to results of a large U.S. registry study.

The survival profile for milrinone was more favorable than that for dobutamine across various indications for use, including bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, and palliation.

The findings illustrate an “urgent need” for randomized trials that compare inotropic therapy strategies in patients with end-stage heart failure, said investigator Behram P. Mody, MD, of the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

“Although [there is] the possibility of selection bias and there are confounding variables, this consistent finding may reflect a true benefit of milrinone,” Dr. Mody said in a presentation at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America

The evidence to support use of continuous outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy in stage D heart failure is limited and comes mainly from case series, and small, randomized trials demonstrating poor outcomes, Dr. Mody explained.

“Long-term survival associated with home inotropes in the modern era of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is poorly defined,” he said.

The retrospective study Dr. Mody presented at the meeting included 1,149 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29.9% women) who received continuous intravenous outpatient inotropic therapy (milrinone or dobutamine) from 2015 to 2017. This is possibly the largest body of data reported to date of patients receiving home inotropes, he said.

For the overall population, the estimated 1-year survival rate was 71% with milrinone, compared with 46% for dobutamine (P less than .0001), Dr. Mody reported. After adjusting for age, gender, weight, and indication, milrinone use was still significantly associated with lower mortality, compared with dobutamine (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.64; P less than .0001).

The survival benefit of milrinone over dobutamine was also significant in subsets of patients receiving home inotropes as bridge to transplant, bridge to mechanical support, or palliation. A similar trend, though not statistically significant, was seen for inotropes used as a bridge to decision, he added.

Mortality was generally higher in patients receiving inotropes as palliation, as opposed to bridge therapy, with 1-year survival of 55.0% and 65.6%, respectively, and median survival of 461 days and 584 days.

These findings suggest home inotropes can be “beneficial” in patients with end-stage heart failure in an era of guideline-directed medical therapy and greater defibrillator use, Dr. Mody said.

“I’m not saying that it should replace left ventricular assist devices as the bridge to transplant,” he added, “but it could be an alternative strategy for our patients.”

No funding source was given. Dr. Mody had no disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mody BP et al. J Card Fail. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2019.07.021.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who enrolled in clinical trials had a near 50% lower risk of death versus patients who received treatment outside a clinical trial, according to results of a single-center, retrospective medical record review.

Median survival was almost doubled for those patients with NSCLC enrolled in therapeutic drug trials, according to lead author Christina Merkhofer, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle.

The findings suggest that clinical trials, beyond supporting drug development, provide a direct benefit to NSCLC patients through provision of promising agents, enhanced supportive care, or both, according to Dr. Merkhofer and coauthors, who will present their findings in a poster at the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The retrospective study included a total of 371 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC between 2001 and 2015, of whom 118 (32%) enrolled in at least one clinical trial, Dr. Merkhofer reported at a press briefing ahead of the symposium.

Median survival was 838 days for the clinical trial enrollees versus 454 days for nonenrollees, according to the investigators. The risk of death was 47% lower (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.92; P = .002) for enrollees relative to nonenrollees after adjustment for variables including sex, performance status, smoking history, histology, presence of brain metastases, and EGFR/ALK status.

Based on this study by Dr. Merkhofer and colleagues, participating in therapeutic drug trials appears to improve survival in patients with advanced lung cancer, ASCO expert Merry-Jennifer Markham, MD, said in a statement.

Oncologists have a “duty” to enroll patients in clinical trials as appropriate, said Dr. Markham, chair of the Quality Care Symposium’s news planning team.

“We must work to better understand factors associated with enrollment so that the prospective benefits can be made accessible to all who are eligible,” she said.

The research is part of a larger investigation looking at “areas of uncertainty” in clinical trial participation, such as whether specific trial design characteristics are linked to survival benefit, according to Dr. Merkhofer.

“The study can support research evaluating health care policies or research that looks at incentives for patient participation in trials, such as financing transportation or lodging, [and] can help with research that addresses some of these important barriers to trial participation,” Dr. Merkhofer said in an ASCO press release.

Dr. Merkhofer had no disclosures related to the study. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Merkhofer C et al. QCS2019, Abstract 137.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who enrolled in clinical trials had a near 50% lower risk of death versus patients who received treatment outside a clinical trial, according to results of a single-center, retrospective medical record review.

Median survival was almost doubled for those patients with NSCLC enrolled in therapeutic drug trials, according to lead author Christina Merkhofer, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle.

The findings suggest that clinical trials, beyond supporting drug development, provide a direct benefit to NSCLC patients through provision of promising agents, enhanced supportive care, or both, according to Dr. Merkhofer and coauthors, who will present their findings in a poster at the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The retrospective study included a total of 371 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC between 2001 and 2015, of whom 118 (32%) enrolled in at least one clinical trial, Dr. Merkhofer reported at a press briefing ahead of the symposium.

Median survival was 838 days for the clinical trial enrollees versus 454 days for nonenrollees, according to the investigators. The risk of death was 47% lower (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.92; P = .002) for enrollees relative to nonenrollees after adjustment for variables including sex, performance status, smoking history, histology, presence of brain metastases, and EGFR/ALK status.

Based on this study by Dr. Merkhofer and colleagues, participating in therapeutic drug trials appears to improve survival in patients with advanced lung cancer, ASCO expert Merry-Jennifer Markham, MD, said in a statement.

Oncologists have a “duty” to enroll patients in clinical trials as appropriate, said Dr. Markham, chair of the Quality Care Symposium’s news planning team.

“We must work to better understand factors associated with enrollment so that the prospective benefits can be made accessible to all who are eligible,” she said.

The research is part of a larger investigation looking at “areas of uncertainty” in clinical trial participation, such as whether specific trial design characteristics are linked to survival benefit, according to Dr. Merkhofer.

“The study can support research evaluating health care policies or research that looks at incentives for patient participation in trials, such as financing transportation or lodging, [and] can help with research that addresses some of these important barriers to trial participation,” Dr. Merkhofer said in an ASCO press release.

Dr. Merkhofer had no disclosures related to the study. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Merkhofer C et al. QCS2019, Abstract 137.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who enrolled in clinical trials had a near 50% lower risk of death versus patients who received treatment outside a clinical trial, according to results of a single-center, retrospective medical record review.

Median survival was almost doubled for those patients with NSCLC enrolled in therapeutic drug trials, according to lead author Christina Merkhofer, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle.

The findings suggest that clinical trials, beyond supporting drug development, provide a direct benefit to NSCLC patients through provision of promising agents, enhanced supportive care, or both, according to Dr. Merkhofer and coauthors, who will present their findings in a poster at the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The retrospective study included a total of 371 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC between 2001 and 2015, of whom 118 (32%) enrolled in at least one clinical trial, Dr. Merkhofer reported at a press briefing ahead of the symposium.

Median survival was 838 days for the clinical trial enrollees versus 454 days for nonenrollees, according to the investigators. The risk of death was 47% lower (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.92; P = .002) for enrollees relative to nonenrollees after adjustment for variables including sex, performance status, smoking history, histology, presence of brain metastases, and EGFR/ALK status.

Based on this study by Dr. Merkhofer and colleagues, participating in therapeutic drug trials appears to improve survival in patients with advanced lung cancer, ASCO expert Merry-Jennifer Markham, MD, said in a statement.

Oncologists have a “duty” to enroll patients in clinical trials as appropriate, said Dr. Markham, chair of the Quality Care Symposium’s news planning team.

“We must work to better understand factors associated with enrollment so that the prospective benefits can be made accessible to all who are eligible,” she said.

The research is part of a larger investigation looking at “areas of uncertainty” in clinical trial participation, such as whether specific trial design characteristics are linked to survival benefit, according to Dr. Merkhofer.

“The study can support research evaluating health care policies or research that looks at incentives for patient participation in trials, such as financing transportation or lodging, [and] can help with research that addresses some of these important barriers to trial participation,” Dr. Merkhofer said in an ASCO press release.

Dr. Merkhofer had no disclosures related to the study. Her coauthors reported disclosures related to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Merkhofer C et al. QCS2019, Abstract 137.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Higher out-of-pocket costs for oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were linked to inferior survival in patients with advanced, biomarker-positive lung cancers in an analysis of state-level registry data, an investigator reported at a press conference ahead of the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Higher out-of-pocket cost burden was also linked to lower numbers of TKI prescriptions and shorter duration of TKI therapy in the study, which included patients diagnosed with EGFR- and ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2016.

The findings would suggest a need for a review of coverage for these effective medications, according to Bernardo H. L. Goulart, MD, a thoracic oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“Making sure that the cost to the patients is affordable could mitigate this financial toxicity, and hopefully help patients stay on therapy and derive the survival benefit that these medications are supposed to offer,” Dr. Goulart said in an interview.

The study included data on 106 patients with EGFR- and ALK-positive stage IV NSCLC in the Washington Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry who had at least one oral TKI prescription. Investigators linked that registry data with commercial and Medicare claims, then divided this patient cohort into quartiles based on out-of-pocket costs.

In the top quartile, the median monthly out-of-pocket cost for TKI treatment was $2,888, compared with just $1,431 in the other three quartiles – essentially half the cost, Dr. Goulart said.

Median survival in the patients in the top out-of-pocket cost quartile was just 9 months, compared with 22 months in the lower three quartiles, he added.

“That difference is remarkable,” Dr. Goulart said, adding that the survival in the top-cost quartile reflects a survival that might be expected with conventional, nontargeted chemotherapy, while survival in the remaining patients mirrored what might be expected based on clinical trials of TKIs in this setting.

Patients in the high-cost quartile were 2.31 times as likely to die as patients in the lower quartiles, according to results of a multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient, disease-specific, and financial characteristics including qualification for low-income subsidies.

The mean medication possession ratio, a measure of medication adherence, was lower in the high-cost quartile (1.06 vs. 1.20 for the lower three quartiles; P = .02), and median duration of therapy was likewise lower in the high-cost quartile (4 vs. 8 months; P less than .01), according to data reported in the study abstract.

While multiple previous studies have linked out-of-pocket costs to decreased adherence and duration of therapy, the present study is one of the few to evaluate the link between cost of oral cancer medications and survival, according to Dr. Goulart.

In one other recent study showing a relationship between financial toxicity and survival, researchers at Fred Hutch showing that Washington cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy were more likely to die, compared with cancer patients not filing for bankruptcy, even after adjustment for a variety of patient characteristics.

The present study results raise a “serious concern” that some patients are unable to afford their medications, which is having a detrimental effect on survival, Dr. Goulart said. Alternatively, the out-of-pocket costs may not have an effect on survival; rather, they may be a “marker of very poor insurance coverage” that reflects higher costs for multiple other aspects of their care.

“The out-of-pocket cost for these drugs can be pretty astronomical, and we have at least a plausible hypothesis that they are taking a toll on patient’s survival,” he added.

If the findings of this study are confirmed in more and larger studies, there could be important implications for health policy and oncology practice, according to Dr. Goulart.

“The biggest action would be to involve patient advocates and physician groups such as ASCO, and advocate for changes in policy for coverage and out-of-pocket costs for these oral TKIs, at least for the patients that have the mutations,” he explained.

Another action, according to Dr. Goulart, would be to try to equip oncology clinics everywhere with patient financial-assistance programs to link patients to entities that can help them afford the cost of TKIs.

“Patients who attend small, remote cancer clinics might not have access to a financial specialist who can help them navigate these costs,” he said.

Funding for the study came from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goulart reported disclosures related to Flatiron Health (travel, accommodations, and expenses).
 

SOURCE: Goulart BHL et al. SCS 2019, Abstract 3.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Higher out-of-pocket costs for oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were linked to inferior survival in patients with advanced, biomarker-positive lung cancers in an analysis of state-level registry data, an investigator reported at a press conference ahead of the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Higher out-of-pocket cost burden was also linked to lower numbers of TKI prescriptions and shorter duration of TKI therapy in the study, which included patients diagnosed with EGFR- and ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2016.

The findings would suggest a need for a review of coverage for these effective medications, according to Bernardo H. L. Goulart, MD, a thoracic oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“Making sure that the cost to the patients is affordable could mitigate this financial toxicity, and hopefully help patients stay on therapy and derive the survival benefit that these medications are supposed to offer,” Dr. Goulart said in an interview.

The study included data on 106 patients with EGFR- and ALK-positive stage IV NSCLC in the Washington Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry who had at least one oral TKI prescription. Investigators linked that registry data with commercial and Medicare claims, then divided this patient cohort into quartiles based on out-of-pocket costs.

In the top quartile, the median monthly out-of-pocket cost for TKI treatment was $2,888, compared with just $1,431 in the other three quartiles – essentially half the cost, Dr. Goulart said.

Median survival in the patients in the top out-of-pocket cost quartile was just 9 months, compared with 22 months in the lower three quartiles, he added.

“That difference is remarkable,” Dr. Goulart said, adding that the survival in the top-cost quartile reflects a survival that might be expected with conventional, nontargeted chemotherapy, while survival in the remaining patients mirrored what might be expected based on clinical trials of TKIs in this setting.

Patients in the high-cost quartile were 2.31 times as likely to die as patients in the lower quartiles, according to results of a multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient, disease-specific, and financial characteristics including qualification for low-income subsidies.

The mean medication possession ratio, a measure of medication adherence, was lower in the high-cost quartile (1.06 vs. 1.20 for the lower three quartiles; P = .02), and median duration of therapy was likewise lower in the high-cost quartile (4 vs. 8 months; P less than .01), according to data reported in the study abstract.

While multiple previous studies have linked out-of-pocket costs to decreased adherence and duration of therapy, the present study is one of the few to evaluate the link between cost of oral cancer medications and survival, according to Dr. Goulart.

In one other recent study showing a relationship between financial toxicity and survival, researchers at Fred Hutch showing that Washington cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy were more likely to die, compared with cancer patients not filing for bankruptcy, even after adjustment for a variety of patient characteristics.

The present study results raise a “serious concern” that some patients are unable to afford their medications, which is having a detrimental effect on survival, Dr. Goulart said. Alternatively, the out-of-pocket costs may not have an effect on survival; rather, they may be a “marker of very poor insurance coverage” that reflects higher costs for multiple other aspects of their care.

“The out-of-pocket cost for these drugs can be pretty astronomical, and we have at least a plausible hypothesis that they are taking a toll on patient’s survival,” he added.

If the findings of this study are confirmed in more and larger studies, there could be important implications for health policy and oncology practice, according to Dr. Goulart.

“The biggest action would be to involve patient advocates and physician groups such as ASCO, and advocate for changes in policy for coverage and out-of-pocket costs for these oral TKIs, at least for the patients that have the mutations,” he explained.

Another action, according to Dr. Goulart, would be to try to equip oncology clinics everywhere with patient financial-assistance programs to link patients to entities that can help them afford the cost of TKIs.

“Patients who attend small, remote cancer clinics might not have access to a financial specialist who can help them navigate these costs,” he said.

Funding for the study came from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goulart reported disclosures related to Flatiron Health (travel, accommodations, and expenses).
 

SOURCE: Goulart BHL et al. SCS 2019, Abstract 3.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. – Higher out-of-pocket costs for oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were linked to inferior survival in patients with advanced, biomarker-positive lung cancers in an analysis of state-level registry data, an investigator reported at a press conference ahead of the Quality Care Symposium, sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Higher out-of-pocket cost burden was also linked to lower numbers of TKI prescriptions and shorter duration of TKI therapy in the study, which included patients diagnosed with EGFR- and ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 2010 and 2016.

The findings would suggest a need for a review of coverage for these effective medications, according to Bernardo H. L. Goulart, MD, a thoracic oncologist and health services researcher at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“Making sure that the cost to the patients is affordable could mitigate this financial toxicity, and hopefully help patients stay on therapy and derive the survival benefit that these medications are supposed to offer,” Dr. Goulart said in an interview.

The study included data on 106 patients with EGFR- and ALK-positive stage IV NSCLC in the Washington Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry who had at least one oral TKI prescription. Investigators linked that registry data with commercial and Medicare claims, then divided this patient cohort into quartiles based on out-of-pocket costs.

In the top quartile, the median monthly out-of-pocket cost for TKI treatment was $2,888, compared with just $1,431 in the other three quartiles – essentially half the cost, Dr. Goulart said.

Median survival in the patients in the top out-of-pocket cost quartile was just 9 months, compared with 22 months in the lower three quartiles, he added.

“That difference is remarkable,” Dr. Goulart said, adding that the survival in the top-cost quartile reflects a survival that might be expected with conventional, nontargeted chemotherapy, while survival in the remaining patients mirrored what might be expected based on clinical trials of TKIs in this setting.

Patients in the high-cost quartile were 2.31 times as likely to die as patients in the lower quartiles, according to results of a multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient, disease-specific, and financial characteristics including qualification for low-income subsidies.

The mean medication possession ratio, a measure of medication adherence, was lower in the high-cost quartile (1.06 vs. 1.20 for the lower three quartiles; P = .02), and median duration of therapy was likewise lower in the high-cost quartile (4 vs. 8 months; P less than .01), according to data reported in the study abstract.

While multiple previous studies have linked out-of-pocket costs to decreased adherence and duration of therapy, the present study is one of the few to evaluate the link between cost of oral cancer medications and survival, according to Dr. Goulart.

In one other recent study showing a relationship between financial toxicity and survival, researchers at Fred Hutch showing that Washington cancer patients who filed for bankruptcy were more likely to die, compared with cancer patients not filing for bankruptcy, even after adjustment for a variety of patient characteristics.

The present study results raise a “serious concern” that some patients are unable to afford their medications, which is having a detrimental effect on survival, Dr. Goulart said. Alternatively, the out-of-pocket costs may not have an effect on survival; rather, they may be a “marker of very poor insurance coverage” that reflects higher costs for multiple other aspects of their care.

“The out-of-pocket cost for these drugs can be pretty astronomical, and we have at least a plausible hypothesis that they are taking a toll on patient’s survival,” he added.

If the findings of this study are confirmed in more and larger studies, there could be important implications for health policy and oncology practice, according to Dr. Goulart.

“The biggest action would be to involve patient advocates and physician groups such as ASCO, and advocate for changes in policy for coverage and out-of-pocket costs for these oral TKIs, at least for the patients that have the mutations,” he explained.

Another action, according to Dr. Goulart, would be to try to equip oncology clinics everywhere with patient financial-assistance programs to link patients to entities that can help them afford the cost of TKIs.

“Patients who attend small, remote cancer clinics might not have access to a financial specialist who can help them navigate these costs,” he said.

Funding for the study came from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goulart reported disclosures related to Flatiron Health (travel, accommodations, and expenses).
 

SOURCE: Goulart BHL et al. SCS 2019, Abstract 3.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

Among women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a phase 2 randomized trial, the pan-ErbB inhibitor pyrotinib plus capecitabine had manageable toxicity and a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) than lapatinib plus capecitabine, investigators reported.

The pyrotinib/capecitabine combination also led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus that of standard lapatinib/capecitabine treatment in these women, who had previously received treatment with taxanes, anthracyclines, and in some cases trastuzumab, the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial to demonstrate that a novel epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2–targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor provides ORR and PFS benefits over lapatinib,” wrote Fei Ma, MD, of the National Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking, and colleagues.

In the phase 2 study, a total of 128 Chinese women with histologically confirmed relapsed or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive the pyrotinib- or lapatinib-containing regimens given in 21-day cycles.

Overall response rates, the primary end point, were 78% (51 of 65 patients) in the pyrotinib arm and 57.1% (36 of 63 patients) in the lapatinib arm (P = .01), Dr. Yu and colleagues reported.

Median PFS was 18.1 months versus 7.0 months in the pyrotinib and lapatinib arms, respectively (P less than .001). A “potential trend” toward improved overall survival was noted in the pyrotinib arm, though the data were premature and not statistically significant at the time of data analysis, according to the investigators.

Altogether, these efficacy results tracked with those of an earlier phase 1 investigation, and currently, a randomized phase 3 study is underway to confirm the findings, reported Dr. Yu and coauthors.

Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea were the most common grade 3 adverse events seen with pyrotinib. The rate of grade 3 hand-foot syndrome wit pyrotinib was 24.6% versus 20.6% for the lapatinib group, and the rate of grade 3 diarrhea for the two groups was 15.4% and 4.8%, respectively.

Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were seen in 61% of patients receiving pyrotinib, of which 3.1% were grade 4; they were seen in 47.6% of patients receiving lapatinib, of which 3.2% were grade 4.

Diarrhea of grade 3 severity occurred mainly in the first treatment cycle for both the pyrotinib and lapatinib groups, investigators said.

While the protocol for this randomized phase 2 study did not permit diarrhea prophylaxis, the use of prophylactic loperamide is being studied in a phase 3 study of pyrotinib plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in women with HER2-positive metastatic disease and no prior systemic therapy

Investigators said patients are told to interrupt capecitabine if they experience ongoing grade 3 diarrhea or grade 1 or 2 diarrhea with complications such as dehydration, nausea, vomiting, or fever. If the diarrhea persists after 3 days, pyrotinib should then be interrupted, they said.

Similar advice was given for hand-foot syndrome.

“To date, the only method proven to effectively manage hand-foot syndrome is interruption of treatment and, if necessary, dose reduction,” said the investigators, who recommended first interrupting capecitabine and later pyrotinib.

The study was sponsored by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and supported by the CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine and the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China. The corresponding author of this study, Binghe Xu, MD, PHD, reported institutional research funding from Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and other disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Eisai. Two study coauthors reported employment with Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.

SOURCE: Ma F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00108.

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

Patients at very high risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes derive substantial benefit from proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition, according to results of two analyses from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

In one prespecified analysis, the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab was linked to improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while in the other, researchers wrote that alirocumab showed a “large absolute benefit” in patients with polyvascular disease, which they defined as the presence of concomitant peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or both.

These reports on alirocumab outcomes in patients with prior CABG and polyvascular disease appear in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Prior CABG and polyvascular disease were both associated with markedly elevated risks of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death, investigators wrote in the reports.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial included 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and high atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin treatment. The primary outcome was MACE, comprising a composite of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% relative risk reduction.

Polyvascular disease

In the trial population, 1,405 patients had polyvascular disease in at least two beds, including a coronary artery, plus either peripheral artery or cerebrovascular, while 149 had polyvascular disease in all three beds. The remainder, including 17,370 patients, were classified as having monovascular disease.

The incidences of MACE for placebo-treated patients with monovascular disease, two-bed polyvascular disease, and three-bed polyvascular disease were 10.0%, 22.2%, and 39.7%, respectively. Alirocumab treatment resulted in an absolute risk reduction for MACE of 1.4%, 1.9%, and 13.0%, for those respective groups (P = .0006).

Similarly, the incidence of the secondary endpoint of death for placebo-treated patients was 3.5%, 10.0%, and 21.8%, and the ARR with alirocumab was 0.4%, 1.3%, and 16.2% (P = .002), according to their reported data.

These results suggest that patients with polyvascular disease are an “easily identifiable subgroup” of ACS patients with a high absolute risk of MACE and death, according to the investigators, led by J. Wouter Jukema, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large absolute benefit of PCSK9 inhibition with alirocumab, when added to high-intensity statin therapy, is a potential benefit for this group of patients,” Dr. Jukema and coauthors wrote.

Prior CABG

Of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients, 1,025 had an index CABG after ACS, 1,003 had CABG before ACS, and the remaining 16,896 had no such procedure.

Hazard ratios for both MACE and death in all CABG categories were consistent with the overall results of ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, the investigators wrote. Specifically, alirocumab reduced MACE and death in the overall study, with HRs of 0.85 for both endpoints.

The ARRs in MACE with alirocumab were 1.3% for no CABG, 0.9% for index CABG, and 6.4% for prior CABG (P = .0007), while ARRs in death with the treatment were 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.6% (P = .03) for those categories, respectively. In this analysis, the investigators calculated the number needed to treat to prevent one primary or secondary endpoint over the median 2.8 years of follow-up. The numbers needed to treat were 16 for prior CABG, 111 for index, and 77 for no prior CABG.

“Although the relative benefit of alirocumab versus placebo is consistent regardless of prior CABG status, those with prior CABG achieve substantially greater absolute risk reduction and consequently lower number needed to treat,” wrote the authors of the analysis, led by Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto.

Funding for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial and its subanalyses was provided by Sanofi and Regeneron. Authors of the analyses reported disclosures related to Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCES: Goodman SG et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.015; Jukema JW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.013.

Patients at very high risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes derive substantial benefit from proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition, according to results of two analyses from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

In one prespecified analysis, the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab was linked to improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while in the other, researchers wrote that alirocumab showed a “large absolute benefit” in patients with polyvascular disease, which they defined as the presence of concomitant peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or both.

These reports on alirocumab outcomes in patients with prior CABG and polyvascular disease appear in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Prior CABG and polyvascular disease were both associated with markedly elevated risks of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death, investigators wrote in the reports.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial included 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and high atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin treatment. The primary outcome was MACE, comprising a composite of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% relative risk reduction.

Polyvascular disease

In the trial population, 1,405 patients had polyvascular disease in at least two beds, including a coronary artery, plus either peripheral artery or cerebrovascular, while 149 had polyvascular disease in all three beds. The remainder, including 17,370 patients, were classified as having monovascular disease.

The incidences of MACE for placebo-treated patients with monovascular disease, two-bed polyvascular disease, and three-bed polyvascular disease were 10.0%, 22.2%, and 39.7%, respectively. Alirocumab treatment resulted in an absolute risk reduction for MACE of 1.4%, 1.9%, and 13.0%, for those respective groups (P = .0006).

Similarly, the incidence of the secondary endpoint of death for placebo-treated patients was 3.5%, 10.0%, and 21.8%, and the ARR with alirocumab was 0.4%, 1.3%, and 16.2% (P = .002), according to their reported data.

These results suggest that patients with polyvascular disease are an “easily identifiable subgroup” of ACS patients with a high absolute risk of MACE and death, according to the investigators, led by J. Wouter Jukema, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large absolute benefit of PCSK9 inhibition with alirocumab, when added to high-intensity statin therapy, is a potential benefit for this group of patients,” Dr. Jukema and coauthors wrote.

Prior CABG

Of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients, 1,025 had an index CABG after ACS, 1,003 had CABG before ACS, and the remaining 16,896 had no such procedure.

Hazard ratios for both MACE and death in all CABG categories were consistent with the overall results of ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, the investigators wrote. Specifically, alirocumab reduced MACE and death in the overall study, with HRs of 0.85 for both endpoints.

The ARRs in MACE with alirocumab were 1.3% for no CABG, 0.9% for index CABG, and 6.4% for prior CABG (P = .0007), while ARRs in death with the treatment were 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.6% (P = .03) for those categories, respectively. In this analysis, the investigators calculated the number needed to treat to prevent one primary or secondary endpoint over the median 2.8 years of follow-up. The numbers needed to treat were 16 for prior CABG, 111 for index, and 77 for no prior CABG.

“Although the relative benefit of alirocumab versus placebo is consistent regardless of prior CABG status, those with prior CABG achieve substantially greater absolute risk reduction and consequently lower number needed to treat,” wrote the authors of the analysis, led by Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto.

Funding for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial and its subanalyses was provided by Sanofi and Regeneron. Authors of the analyses reported disclosures related to Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCES: Goodman SG et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.015; Jukema JW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.013.

Patients at very high risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes derive substantial benefit from proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition, according to results of two analyses from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial.

In one prespecified analysis, the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab was linked to improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while in the other, researchers wrote that alirocumab showed a “large absolute benefit” in patients with polyvascular disease, which they defined as the presence of concomitant peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or both.

These reports on alirocumab outcomes in patients with prior CABG and polyvascular disease appear in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Prior CABG and polyvascular disease were both associated with markedly elevated risks of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death, investigators wrote in the reports.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial included 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and high atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin treatment. The primary outcome was MACE, comprising a composite of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. During a median 2.8 years of follow-up, this outcome occurred in 9.5% of the overall population randomized to alirocumab and 11.1% of those on placebo, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 15% relative risk reduction.

Polyvascular disease

In the trial population, 1,405 patients had polyvascular disease in at least two beds, including a coronary artery, plus either peripheral artery or cerebrovascular, while 149 had polyvascular disease in all three beds. The remainder, including 17,370 patients, were classified as having monovascular disease.

The incidences of MACE for placebo-treated patients with monovascular disease, two-bed polyvascular disease, and three-bed polyvascular disease were 10.0%, 22.2%, and 39.7%, respectively. Alirocumab treatment resulted in an absolute risk reduction for MACE of 1.4%, 1.9%, and 13.0%, for those respective groups (P = .0006).

Similarly, the incidence of the secondary endpoint of death for placebo-treated patients was 3.5%, 10.0%, and 21.8%, and the ARR with alirocumab was 0.4%, 1.3%, and 16.2% (P = .002), according to their reported data.

These results suggest that patients with polyvascular disease are an “easily identifiable subgroup” of ACS patients with a high absolute risk of MACE and death, according to the investigators, led by J. Wouter Jukema, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large absolute benefit of PCSK9 inhibition with alirocumab, when added to high-intensity statin therapy, is a potential benefit for this group of patients,” Dr. Jukema and coauthors wrote.

Prior CABG

Of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients, 1,025 had an index CABG after ACS, 1,003 had CABG before ACS, and the remaining 16,896 had no such procedure.

Hazard ratios for both MACE and death in all CABG categories were consistent with the overall results of ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, the investigators wrote. Specifically, alirocumab reduced MACE and death in the overall study, with HRs of 0.85 for both endpoints.

The ARRs in MACE with alirocumab were 1.3% for no CABG, 0.9% for index CABG, and 6.4% for prior CABG (P = .0007), while ARRs in death with the treatment were 0.4%, 0.5%, and 3.6% (P = .03) for those categories, respectively. In this analysis, the investigators calculated the number needed to treat to prevent one primary or secondary endpoint over the median 2.8 years of follow-up. The numbers needed to treat were 16 for prior CABG, 111 for index, and 77 for no prior CABG.

“Although the relative benefit of alirocumab versus placebo is consistent regardless of prior CABG status, those with prior CABG achieve substantially greater absolute risk reduction and consequently lower number needed to treat,” wrote the authors of the analysis, led by Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc, of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto.

Funding for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial and its subanalyses was provided by Sanofi and Regeneron. Authors of the analyses reported disclosures related to Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCES: Goodman SG et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.015; Jukema JW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.013.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

Pretreatment CT data may help identify responders to immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, according to a new study.

Specifically, fewer sites of disease and lower intratumor heterogeneity on contrast-enhanced CT may indicate a higher likelihood of durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, according to results of the retrospective study, recently published in JCO Precision Oncology.

“Our results suggest that quantitative analysis of baseline contrast-enhanced CT may facilitate the delivery of precision medicine to patients with ovarian cancer by identifying patients who may benefit from immunotherapy,” wrote Yuki Himoto, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and colleagues.

The study leverages findings from the emerging field of radiomics, which the investigators note allows for “virtual sampling” of tumor heterogeneity within a single lesion and between lesions.

“This information may complement molecular profiling in personalizing medical decisions,” Dr. Himoto and coauthors explained.

The study cohort included 75 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in ongoing, prospective trials of immunotherapy, according to the researchers. Of that group, just under one in five derived a durable clinical benefit, defined as progression-free survival lasting at least 24 weeks.

In univariable analysis, they found a number of contrast-enhanced CT variables were linked to durable clinical benefit, including fewer disease sites, lower cluster-site entropy and dissimilarity, which they wrote were an indicator of lower intertumor heterogeneity, and higher energy in the largest-volume lesion, which they described as an indicator of lower intratumor heterogeneity.

However, in multivariable analysis, the only variables that were still associated with durable clinical benefit were fewer disease sites (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.27; P = .012) and higher energy in the largest lesion (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81; P = .006), according to the report.

Those two factors combined were a composite indicator of durable clinical benefit (C-index, 0.821).

These findings could represent a step forward in the provision of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, which exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, compared with some other cancer types, the investigators wrote.

More insights are needed, however, to help personalize the selection of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer, including a better understanding of cancer immune reactions and retooling of immune response criteria, they added.

“Composite multimodal multifaceted biomarkers that noninvasively capture spatiotemporal tumor heterogeneity will likely be necessary to comprehensively assess immune the tumor microenvironment and serve as clinical decision support for prognosis inference and prediction of response,” Dr. Himoto and associates wrote.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, among other sources. Study authors reported disclosures related to Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Himoto Y et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00038.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk.

By contrast, antiplatelet therapy was linked to a reduced risk of stroke in those AFib-TAVR patients, regardless of whether an oral anticoagulant was on board, according to results of a substudy of the randomized PARTNER II (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve II) trial and its associated registries.

“Anticoagulant therapy was associated with a reduced risk of stroke and the composite of death or stroke when used concomitantly with uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy following TAVR,” concluded authors of the analysis, led by Ioanna Kosmidou, MD, PhD, of Columbia University in New York.

Taken together, these findings suggest OAC alone is “not sufficient” to prevent cerebrovascular events after TAVR in patients with AFib, Dr. Kosmidou and colleagues reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The analysis of the PARTNER II substudy included a total of 1,621 patients with aortic stenosis treated with TAVR who had a history of AFib and an absolute indication for anticoagulation as evidenced by a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2.

Despite the absolute indication for anticoagulation, more than 40% of these patients were not prescribed an OAC upon discharge, investigators wrote, though the rate of nonprescribing decreased over the 5-year enrollment period of 2011-2015.

OAC therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk in this cohort, investigators said. After 2 years, the rate of stroke was 6.6% for AFib-TAVR patients on anticoagulant therapy, and 5.6% for those who were not on anticoagulant therapy, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.53, according to the reported data.

By contrast, uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy reduced both risk of stroke and risk of the composite endpoint of stroke and death at 2 years “irrespective of concomitant anticoagulation,” Dr. Kosmidou and coinvestigators wrote in the report.

The stroke rates were 5.4% for antiplatelet therapy plus OAC, versus 11.1% for those receiving neither antithrombotic treatment (P = 0.03), while the rates of stroke or death were 29.7% and 40.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), according to investigators.

After adjustment, stroke risk was not significantly reduced for OAC when compared with no OAC or antiplatelet therapy (HR, 0.61; P = .16), whereas stroke risk was indeed reduced for antiplatelet therapy alone (HR, 0.32; P = .002) and antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulation (HR, 0.44; P = .018).

The PARTNER II study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Senior author Martin B. Leon, MD, and several other study coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards Lifesciences, in addition to Abbott Vascular, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and other companies. Dr. Kosmidou reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kosmidou I et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1580-9.

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk.

By contrast, antiplatelet therapy was linked to a reduced risk of stroke in those AFib-TAVR patients, regardless of whether an oral anticoagulant was on board, according to results of a substudy of the randomized PARTNER II (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve II) trial and its associated registries.

“Anticoagulant therapy was associated with a reduced risk of stroke and the composite of death or stroke when used concomitantly with uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy following TAVR,” concluded authors of the analysis, led by Ioanna Kosmidou, MD, PhD, of Columbia University in New York.

Taken together, these findings suggest OAC alone is “not sufficient” to prevent cerebrovascular events after TAVR in patients with AFib, Dr. Kosmidou and colleagues reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The analysis of the PARTNER II substudy included a total of 1,621 patients with aortic stenosis treated with TAVR who had a history of AFib and an absolute indication for anticoagulation as evidenced by a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2.

Despite the absolute indication for anticoagulation, more than 40% of these patients were not prescribed an OAC upon discharge, investigators wrote, though the rate of nonprescribing decreased over the 5-year enrollment period of 2011-2015.

OAC therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk in this cohort, investigators said. After 2 years, the rate of stroke was 6.6% for AFib-TAVR patients on anticoagulant therapy, and 5.6% for those who were not on anticoagulant therapy, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.53, according to the reported data.

By contrast, uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy reduced both risk of stroke and risk of the composite endpoint of stroke and death at 2 years “irrespective of concomitant anticoagulation,” Dr. Kosmidou and coinvestigators wrote in the report.

The stroke rates were 5.4% for antiplatelet therapy plus OAC, versus 11.1% for those receiving neither antithrombotic treatment (P = 0.03), while the rates of stroke or death were 29.7% and 40.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), according to investigators.

After adjustment, stroke risk was not significantly reduced for OAC when compared with no OAC or antiplatelet therapy (HR, 0.61; P = .16), whereas stroke risk was indeed reduced for antiplatelet therapy alone (HR, 0.32; P = .002) and antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulation (HR, 0.44; P = .018).

The PARTNER II study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Senior author Martin B. Leon, MD, and several other study coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards Lifesciences, in addition to Abbott Vascular, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and other companies. Dr. Kosmidou reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kosmidou I et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1580-9.

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk.

By contrast, antiplatelet therapy was linked to a reduced risk of stroke in those AFib-TAVR patients, regardless of whether an oral anticoagulant was on board, according to results of a substudy of the randomized PARTNER II (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve II) trial and its associated registries.

“Anticoagulant therapy was associated with a reduced risk of stroke and the composite of death or stroke when used concomitantly with uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy following TAVR,” concluded authors of the analysis, led by Ioanna Kosmidou, MD, PhD, of Columbia University in New York.

Taken together, these findings suggest OAC alone is “not sufficient” to prevent cerebrovascular events after TAVR in patients with AFib, Dr. Kosmidou and colleagues reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The analysis of the PARTNER II substudy included a total of 1,621 patients with aortic stenosis treated with TAVR who had a history of AFib and an absolute indication for anticoagulation as evidenced by a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2.

Despite the absolute indication for anticoagulation, more than 40% of these patients were not prescribed an OAC upon discharge, investigators wrote, though the rate of nonprescribing decreased over the 5-year enrollment period of 2011-2015.

OAC therapy alone was not linked to reduced stroke risk in this cohort, investigators said. After 2 years, the rate of stroke was 6.6% for AFib-TAVR patients on anticoagulant therapy, and 5.6% for those who were not on anticoagulant therapy, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.53, according to the reported data.

By contrast, uninterrupted antiplatelet therapy reduced both risk of stroke and risk of the composite endpoint of stroke and death at 2 years “irrespective of concomitant anticoagulation,” Dr. Kosmidou and coinvestigators wrote in the report.

The stroke rates were 5.4% for antiplatelet therapy plus OAC, versus 11.1% for those receiving neither antithrombotic treatment (P = 0.03), while the rates of stroke or death were 29.7% and 40.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), according to investigators.

After adjustment, stroke risk was not significantly reduced for OAC when compared with no OAC or antiplatelet therapy (HR, 0.61; P = .16), whereas stroke risk was indeed reduced for antiplatelet therapy alone (HR, 0.32; P = .002) and antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulation (HR, 0.44; P = .018).

The PARTNER II study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Senior author Martin B. Leon, MD, and several other study coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards Lifesciences, in addition to Abbott Vascular, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and other companies. Dr. Kosmidou reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Kosmidou I et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1580-9.