Nancy A. Melville

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

Marstacimab, a novel, investigational monoclonal antibody, shows long-term safety and efficacy in the prevention of bleeding events in patients with hemophilia A as well as B without inhibitors, potentially adding to the toolbox for hemophilia A and representing a first of its kind therapy for hemophilia B.

“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.

Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.

The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.

If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.

The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.

Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.

Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.

Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.

With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.

In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.

In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.

The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.

The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.

Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.

The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.

The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.

Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.

“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.

Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.

Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”

Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”

Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”

And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”

The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.

Marstacimab, a novel, investigational monoclonal antibody, shows long-term safety and efficacy in the prevention of bleeding events in patients with hemophilia A as well as B without inhibitors, potentially adding to the toolbox for hemophilia A and representing a first of its kind therapy for hemophilia B.

“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.

Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.

The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.

If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.

The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.

Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.

Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.

Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.

With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.

In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.

In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.

The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.

The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.

Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.

The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.

The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.

Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.

“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.

Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.

Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”

Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”

Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”

And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”

The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.

Marstacimab, a novel, investigational monoclonal antibody, shows long-term safety and efficacy in the prevention of bleeding events in patients with hemophilia A as well as B without inhibitors, potentially adding to the toolbox for hemophilia A and representing a first of its kind therapy for hemophilia B.

“In the long-term extension study treatment with marstacimab demonstrates sustained or improved efficacy for treated and total annualized bleeding rates (ABR) in adults and adolescents with hemophilia A or hemophilia B in this data set of patients without inhibitors,” first author Shamsah Kazani, MD, of Pfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in presenting the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“The majority of the patients from the pivotal study chose to transition into the long-term extension, and we are finding that these patients are highly compliant with their weekly marstacimab dose, with more than 98% compliance,” Dr. Kazani said.

Marstacimab targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor, a natural anticoagulation protein that prevents the formation of blood clots, and is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection.

The therapy has been granted fast-track and orphan drug status in the United States, in addition to orphan drug status in the European Union for the prevention of hemophilia bleeding episodes.

If approved, the therapy would become the first once-weekly subcutaneous therapy for either hemophilia A or B. Emicizumab, which also is administered subcutaneously, is only approved to prevent or reduce bleeding in hemophilia A.

The latest findings are from an interim analysis of a long-term extension study involving 107 of 116 patients who were in the non-inhibitor cohort in the pivotal BASIS trial. Data from that trial, involving patients aged 12-75 previously showed favorable outcomes in the non-inhibitor cohort receiving marstacimab, and a cohort of patients with inhibitors is ongoing.

Participants entering the extension study were continuing on 150-mg subcutaneous doses of marstacimab, which had been administered in the BASIS study for 12 months after a loading dose of 300 mg.

Of the patients, 89 (83%) were adult and 18 (17%) were adolescents. Overall, they had a mean age of 29 years; 83 (76%) patients had hemophilia A, while 24 (22.4%) had hemophilia B.

Prior to switching to marstacimab treatment, 32 patients had been treated with factor replacement therapy on demand, while 75 received the therapy as routine prophylaxis.

With a mean additional duration of follow-up of 12.5 months in the extension study (range, 1-23.1 months), the overall rate of compliance was very high, at 98.9%.

In the pivotal and extension studies combined, 21% of patients had their marstacimab dose increased from 150 mg to 300 mg weekly, which was an option if patients had 2 or more spontaneous bleeds in a major joint while on the 150-mg dose.

In the hemophilia A and B groups combined, those previously treated with on-demand factor replacement therapy (n = 33) had substantial reductions in estimated ABR for treated bleeds from the baseline of 38.0 prior to initiating marstacimab, to 3.2 after 12 months of the treatment in the trial (P < .001).That reduction was sustained at an ABR of 3.7 after the mean additional 12.5 months in the extension study.

The corresponding estimated ABR rates in the routine prophylaxis group (n = 83) were 7.9 at baseline, 5.1 at the end of the trial, and 2.8 in the extension study analysis interim cutoff.

The authors then further stratified the results based on hemophilia A or B groups: Among patients with hemophilia A (n = 26), the on-demand subgroup had a baseline ABR of 40.6, which dropped substantially to just 3.6 after 12 months on marstacimab in the pivotal trial and was sustained at 5.3 in the extension study.

Similar trends were observed in the hemophilia A group who received routine prophylaxis (n = 65), with an ABR of 9.2 at baseline; 5.3 after the trial, and 3.1 at the extension study interim.

The trends were similar among those with hemophilia B, albeit with lower numbers of patients, consistent with hemophilia B being more rare.

The mean ABR at baseline in the on-demand group of those patients (n = 7) was 28.7, which was reduced to just 1.7 after the 12-months of active marstacimab treatment and sustained at 1.8 by the interim analysis of the extension study.

Of hemophilia B patients previously on routine prophylaxis (n = 18), the mean ABR at baseline was 3.3 and was at 4.7 at the end of the trial. The rate declined to 2.3 in the extension phase.

“We see that these trends of improvement with marstacimab are sustained into the long-term extension study, both in the on-demand group and in the routine prophylaxis groups,” Dr. Kazani said.

Importantly, she noted that marstacimab continued to be well tolerated and safe in the long-term extension study, with no reports of thromboembolic events, which had been a concern with the drug.

Commenting on the study, Margaret Ragni, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and clinical and translational research in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that marstacimab could represent an important addition in the prevention of bleeds in hemophilia. “[If marstacimab is approved], hemophilia B patients [will] have a drug that can be given subcutaneously weekly to rebalance hemostasis, reducing bleeds, just as hemophilia A patients have with emicizumab.”

Dr. Ragni underscored, however, that caveats include the important point that “neither [marstacimab nor emicizumab] treats bleeds. For that, standard factor replacement therapy or bypass for inhibitors, would be required.”

Also, “a limitation with marstacimab is the lack of weight-dependent dosing. All use one dose [however, in the studies they did use 150 mg or 300 mg]. ... Furthermore, emicizumab can be given weekly, biweekly, or monthly, while that [variation in dosing] is not yet studied with marstacimab.”

And while no thromboembolic events occurred during the trial, Dr. Ragni underscored that “longer-term follow-up is needed.”

The marstacimab long-term extension study is designed to extend to 7 years of follow-up.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, and Dr. Kazani is an employee of Pfizer. Dr. Ragni reported no disclosures.

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

In the common challenge of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who are refractory to lenalidomide after receiving frontline treatment with the drug, treatment with the first-in-class, antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, along with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (pom-dex), shows significant improvement in durability and progression-free survival (PFS) over the standard of care approach.

“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.

The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.

The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).

The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).

The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.

The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.

While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.

Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.

In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.

Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.

The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).

The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.

As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.

The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.

The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.

“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.

Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn

Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.

Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”

While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”

Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?

The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”

In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”

He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”

“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.

“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.

That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”

And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.

“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”

Other Therapies

In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.

Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.

While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.

“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.

The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.

The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.

In the common challenge of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who are refractory to lenalidomide after receiving frontline treatment with the drug, treatment with the first-in-class, antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, along with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (pom-dex), shows significant improvement in durability and progression-free survival (PFS) over the standard of care approach.

“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.

The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.

The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).

The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).

The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.

The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.

While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.

Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.

In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.

Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.

The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).

The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.

As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.

The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.

The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.

“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.

Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn

Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.

Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”

While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”

Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?

The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”

In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”

He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”

“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.

“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.

That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”

And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.

“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”

Other Therapies

In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.

Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.

While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.

“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.

The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.

The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.

In the common challenge of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who are refractory to lenalidomide after receiving frontline treatment with the drug, treatment with the first-in-class, antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, along with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (pom-dex), shows significant improvement in durability and progression-free survival (PFS) over the standard of care approach.

“Taken together with results from the [previous] DREAMM-7 trial, these data highlight the potential of belantamab mafodotin-containing triplets to address an unmet need for novel regimens to treat patients with multiple myeloma at the first relapse,” senior author Suzanne Trudel, MD, of the department of medical oncology and hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, said in presenting the late-breaking findings in a press briefing at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in Chicago.

The results, published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine, are from an interim analysis of the ongoing phase 3, global open-label DREAMM-8 trial, involving 302 patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who were randomized to treatment with either belantamab mafodotin (n = 155) or bortezomib (n=147), each in addition to the pom-dex combination.

The study met its primary endpoint of PFS at a median follow-up of 21.8 months, with the median PFS in the belantamab mafodotin group not met, and the rate 12.7 months for bortezomib (HR 0.52; P < .001).

The 12-month rate of PFS was significantly higher with belantamab mafodotin compared with the bortezomib group (71% versus 51%).

The overall response rates between the 2 groups were similar (77% versus 72%), however, the belantamab mafodotin group had an improved rate of complete response of 40% versus 16% in the bortezomib group.

The median duration of response was not reached with belantamab mafodotin versus 17.5 months with bortezomib.

While a positive trend for median overall survival favored belantamab mafodotin for median overall survival (HR .77), the authors note that survival data still need to mature.

Further analyses showed early and sustained separation in favor of belantamab mafodotin for PFS in all prespecified subgroups, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, and those refractory to lenalidomide and anti-CD38s.

In terms of safety, grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred among 91% of those in the belantamab mafodotin group compared with 73% in the bortezomib group, however, when the researchers adjusted for time on treatment, the belantamab mafodotin group had similar or lower rates of AEs.

Discontinuation rates for fatal or AEs of any cause were similar in both arms.

The most prominent side effects of belantamab mafodotin are the ocular AEs that affect the majority of patients. In the DREAMM-8 study, the ocular events affected 89% of patients, with events that were grade 3 or higher occurring among 43% (grade 3, 42%; grade 4, 1%).

The ocular events, which included blurred vision, dry eye, and a foreign body sensation in the eyes, were generally reversible and managed with treatment delays and dose modifications.

As of the time of the analysis, the first occurrence of the ocular events had improved in 92% of patients and resolved in 85%, with a median time to resolution of 57 days.

The AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 9% of patients.

The ocular events were managed with a protocol-recommended modification of the belantamab mafodotin dose, which included dose delays until the KVA grade improved to 1 or lower, as well as reductions in the frequency of administration from every 4 weeks to every 8 weeks.

“Ocular AEs are seen in the majority of patients, and the best strategies to mitigate things at this time that we know of are dose holds for grade 2 ocular events, which allow for full recovery and minimize cumulative toxicity, and then prolonging dosing intervals for subsequent doses,” Dr. Trudel said in an interview.

Previous FDA Approval Withdrawn

Of note, belantamab mafodotin previously generated high interest for relapsed/refractory multiple melanoma, with early clinical results earning the therapy accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

However, the FDA approval was subsequently revoked when the DREAMM-3 trial filed to achieve its primary outcome of superior PFS.

Dr. Trudel explained in an interview that since then, key changes have included combinations to improve responses, “overcome early progression and allow patients to benefit from the long duration of response that is achieved with belantamab mafodotin once they respond.”

While the ocular toxicities are common, Dr. Trudel underscored that they are “reversible and manageable.”

Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Less is More?

The ocular AEs observed with belantamab mafodotin are among the variety of unique side effects that are reported with the emerging antibody-drug conjugates, which, with precision targeting, deliver highly potent cytotoxic ‘payloads’ that bind to cells, earning the drugs nicknames such as “smart bombs” and “biologic missiles.”

In the case of belantamab mafodotin, the target is the protein B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

In a commentary on the DREAMM-8 study presented at the meeting, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair of the department of hematology and medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, noted the importance of BCMA: “In describing it to fellows, I explain that everything bad that a myeloma cell wants to do is mediated through BCMA.”

He underscored, however, the need to consider strategic dosing reductions, evoking iconic architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s adage “less is more.”

“These results show belantamab mafodotin is clearly effective, but the question is how do we most effectively deliver it,” he said. “The idea that more is better is not necessarily the case when we’re talking about antibody drug conjugates,” he said.

“We need to use less [drug], less frequently, and do it in a way that preserves patient function,” Dr. Lonial said. “Missed doses may actually result in better safety profiles and maintain the efficacy of the treatment,” he said.

That being said, Dr. Lonial emphasized that the DREAMM-8 study is important, showing “the longest PFS in a pom-dex combination that we’ve seen in multiple myeloma.”

And “less ocular toxicity with similar efficacy are big wins,” he added.

“Future studies should take less frequent dosing into account as they are planned and as they’re executed.”

Other Therapies

In addition to the bortezomib, pom-dex regimen, other currently approved triplet regimens used at the first relapse in multiple myeloma include selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, however that regimen is associated with adverse events that can pose challenges.

Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies — ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel, have emerged and been approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one and at least two previous lines of therapy, respectively.

While those CAR T-cell therapies show important improvements in PFS benefit and quality of life compared with standard triplet regimens, access is a significant stumbling block, and safety issues, including the potential for cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxic effects are also a concern.

“Each regimen for myeloma comes with unique toxicities. Thus, it is beneficial for physicians and patients to have access to multiple treatment regimens to individualize to the patient, based on patient characteristics [and] drug related factors,” Dr. Trudel said.

The current DREAMM-8 regimen represents a convenient, “off-the-shelf option that can be given in the community,” she added.

The trial was sponsored by GSK. Dr. Trudel disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Lonial reported ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, ABBVIE, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, and TG Therapeutics.

Asciminib, a first-in-class tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), shows efficacy and significantly improved tolerability compared with standard of care TKIs as a frontline treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), primary results from the pivotal ASC4FIRST trial show.

“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.

The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.

Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.

Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.

The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.

For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.

The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.

In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.

Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.

The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.

For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).

In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).

The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.

Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.

In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).

The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.

In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.

Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.

Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.

“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.

“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.

“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.

“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
 

Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns

In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.

“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”

He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”

“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”

Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.

“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.

Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”

Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”

Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.

Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.

“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.

“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.

Asciminib, a first-in-class tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), shows efficacy and significantly improved tolerability compared with standard of care TKIs as a frontline treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), primary results from the pivotal ASC4FIRST trial show.

“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.

The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.

Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.

Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.

The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.

For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.

The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.

In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.

Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.

The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.

For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).

In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).

The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.

Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.

In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).

The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.

In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.

Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.

Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.

“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.

“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.

“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.

“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
 

Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns

In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.

“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”

He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”

“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”

Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.

“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.

Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”

Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”

Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.

Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.

“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.

“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.

Asciminib, a first-in-class tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), shows efficacy and significantly improved tolerability compared with standard of care TKIs as a frontline treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), primary results from the pivotal ASC4FIRST trial show.

“In the ASC4FIRST trial, asciminib is the first and only agent to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy versus standard-of-care frontline TKIs in newly diagnosed CML patients,” said senior author Jorge E. Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University in Georgia, in presenting the findings at a press briefing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago.

”Asciminib’s strong benefit-risk profile may transform the CML treatment paradigm,” Dr. Cortes said.

The study was published concurrently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

While TKIs have transformed the treatment of CML, improving the 5-year survival rates from 22% in the 1970s to 70% in recent years, nearly half of patients do not achieve a major molecular response within a year, due to either resistance or intolerance, causing the common switching of drugs.

Long-term use is further associated with common side effects, including gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events, due to off-target effects.

Asciminib is a potent and highly specific agent is an allosteric inhibitor targeting ABL myristoyl pocket, which is important in avoiding off-target effects that cause the common side effects.

The drug already has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML who are resistant or intolerant to at least 2 prior TKIs or those with T315I mutation.

For the current pivotal phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial to evaluate the drug as a frontline therapy in recently diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML, 405 patients from cancer centers in 29 countries were enrolled.

The participants were randomized to treatment either with asciminib 80 mg once daily (n = 201) or to an investigator-selected TKI (n = 204), determined based on factors including patient age, preference, and overall health.

In the latter group, 102 patients were receiving imatinib and an equal number receive a stronger, second-generation TKI.

Overall, the patients had a median age of 52 and 65% were male. About 54% were White and 44% were Asian. Those receiving second-generation TKIs were more likely to be younger and without additional health concerns, allowing them to tolerate the more potent drugs.

The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the other TKIs group.

For the primary outcome, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 among 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, compared with 49% in the combined TKI arm of imatinib and second-generation TKI groups (P < .001).

In a subanalysis of patients who were randomized to receive imatinib, a major molecular response occurred at week 48 in 69.3% in the asciminib group versus 40.2% of patients in the imatinib arm (P < .001).

The corresponding rates in the comparison of patients on second-generation TKIs were 66.0% and 57.8%, which was not a statistically significant difference.

Furthermore, a deep molecular response, which may lead to remission and discontinuation of treatment, occurred at week 48 in among 38.8% in the asciminib arm compared with the 20.6% in the combined investigator-selected TKI arm.

In the imatinib comparison analysis, the deep molecular response occurred in 42.6% of patients in the asciminib arm versus 17.8% in the imatinib arm, and in the second-generation TKI arm, the deep molecular response occurred in 35% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Importantly, in the TKI-treated group, significantly more patients in the asciminib group — 86%, remained on therapy at the data cut-off, compared with 62% of those receiving imatinib and 75% of those receiving a second generation TKI.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that led to discontinuation were lower with asciminib versus imatinib and second-generation TKIs (38% vs 44.4% and 54.9%, respectively), as were events leading to discontinuation (4.5% versus 11.1% and 9.8%, respectively).

The most common adverse events occurring with asciminib were low platelet count (13%) and low neutrophil count (10%). In terms of severe side effects, blood clots, a known severe side effect of TKIs, occurred in only 1% of patients.

In addition, dose adjustments and treatment interruptions were also more significantly less common in the asciminib group.

Overall, the results indicate that “asciminib has the potential to become a therapy of choice for patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML,” said first author Timothy P. Hughes, MD, of South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and University of Adelaide, Australia, in presenting the findings.

Commenting on the study in an interview, Dr. Cortes underscored the importance of molecular responses as indicators of longer-term responses.

“Early responses correlate with better long-term outcomes,” he said. “Most importantly, they are associated with better probabilities of having a deep molecular response, a requirement for considerations of treatment discontinuation,” which is a highly desirable goal for many patients, he noted.

“If we can get more patients to be eligible for treatment discontinuation and to discontinue successfully, this could be a major advance,” Dr. Cortes emphasized.

“Also, for the patients who do have to stay on therapy for the rest of their lives, a treatment option that has fewer adverse events would be very desirable,” he said.

“We need to see that longer follow-up confirms the current trends, but we are very encouraged by what we see so far.”
 

Impressive Results; Financial Toxicity Concerns

In discussing the significance of the findings at the meeting, Pankit Vachhani, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the efficacy and toxicity profiles with asciminib were impressive.

“The nearly 70% major molecular response is one of the highest rates that we have seen in clinical trials at week 48,” he said. “That’s great and maybe we will see deeper responses with time.”

He added that the toxicity profile “was better than imagined — frankly I did not expect that, so that’s a welcome surprise, but we do need longer-term data especially on arterial occlusive events not to mention some other adverse events as well.”

“The question to ask ourselves, though, is whether the use of lower dose first- or second-generation TKIs leads to comparable amounts of toxicities.”

Dr. Vachhani raised the concern of cost: “There is the issue of financial toxicity,” he noted. “At current prices, treatment using asciminib would come to approximately $260,000 per year in terms of the cost to the healthcare system,” he said.

“Meanwhile, imatinib right now, in the US, can be obtained for $500 per year, and additional TKIs are going generic [soon],” he said, noting that survival differences remain unclear.

Further commenting, Eunice Wang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, agreed that the results are impressive, saying the trial supports asciminib as “the new standard of care of first line therapy of newly diagnosed CML based on both efficacy.”

Dr. Wang, who moderated the ASCO session, noted the caveat that “given the chronicity of this disease, it is important to continue to follow the patients enrolled on this study for longevity and durability of these efficacy endpoints.”

Nevertheless, “given the lower discontinuation rates versus other TKIs and the fact that, in my opinion, most patients who stop drug will do so in the first 6-12 months if not tolerated, these results are highly promising,” she said.

Dr. Wang also agreed, however, that the rising costs of the TKIs are an important concern.

“All of the BCR-ABL TKIs except imatinib already cost several thousand dollars per month, but there is a trend that newer agents are priced higher than prior,” she said. “This needs to be addressed as $10-$20K per month is not reasonable, and the pharmaceutical companies need to be aware.

“Yes, the data with asciminib is better, but if many patients who respond to imatinib just take longer and there is no difference in overall or disease-free survival long-term, the financial costs are a serious topic of discussion,” Dr. Wang noted.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Cortes disclosed ties with Ascentage Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel Pharmeuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, and Takeda Oncology. Dr. Vachhani and Dr. Wang reported various disclosures.

STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

STOCKHOLM — Improvements in kidney function outcomes observed with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes extend to patients who are overweight or obese but don›t yet have type 2 diabetes, new research shows.

“These data are important because they are the first data to suggest a kidney benefit of semaglutide in this patient population in the absence of diabetes,” lead author Helen M. Colhoun, MD, of the Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“This is a population at high risk of chronic kidney disease with an increased need for kidney protection,” she said.

The late-breaking study was presented this week at the 61st European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2024 and simultaneously published in Nature Medicine.
 

SELECT Trial Patients Without Diabetes

The findings are from a secondary analysis of the randomized SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity) trial, which evaluated cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide treatment among 17,604 adults with preexisting cardiovascular disease who were overweight or obese — but did not have diabetes.

For its primary endpoint, the trial showed semaglutide was associated with a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo.

With obesity also associated with a significantly increased risk of chronic kidney disease — and the headline-making FLOW trial, also presented at the congress, showing key benefits of semaglutide in improving kidney function in people with CKD and type 2 diabetes the secondary analysis of SELECT was conducted to investigate whether those kidney benefits extended to people without type 2 diabetes.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced, including kidney function and albuminuria status.

The primary endpoint for the analysis was a nephropathy composite of time from randomization to the first occurrence of death from kidney causes; initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy; onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²; persistent ≥ 50% reduction in eGFR compared with baseline; or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria.

With a median follow-up of 182 weeks, the results showed that the semaglutide group was significantly less likely to develop the primary composite endpoint compared with the placebo group (1.8% vs 2.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .02).

A significantly reduced decline in eGFR in the semaglutide group was observed at a prespecified 104-week time point, with a treatment effect of 0.75 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001), and the effect was more pronounced among participants with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001). 

Furthermore, those in the semaglutide group had a significantly lower proportionate increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) compared with placebo (–10.7%; P < .001) at the prespecified 104 weeks, with a net treatment benefit of –27.2% and –31.4% among those with randomization to UACR 30 to < 300 mg/g and 2300 mg/g, respectively.

Improvements varied according to baseline UACR status and were more pronounced among those with macroalbuminuria, at –8.1% for those with normoalbuminuria (n = 14,848), –27% for microalbuminuria (n = 1968), and –31% for macroalbuminuria (n = 325).

There were no reports of acute kidney injury associated with semaglutide, regardless of baseline eGFR. 

“We were hopeful that there would be similar benefits as those observed in the diabetes studies, but there are differences in kidney disease among those with and without type 2 diabetes, so we weren’t sure,” Dr. Colhoun told this news organization.
 

Benefits the Result of Weight Loss or Something Else?

Considering the beneficial effects of semaglutide on weight loss, underscored in an analysis also published this month that showed a mean 10.2% reduction in weight sustained for up to 4  years, a key question is whether the kidney benefits are a direct result of weight loss — or the drug mechanism or something else.

But Dr. Colhoun said the role of weight loss in terms of the kidney benefits is still uncertain, particularly considering the various other factors, including cardiometabolic improvements, which could also have an effect.

“It’s a very difficult question to answer,” she said. “We did do a mediation exploratory analysis suggesting a substantial part of the effect might be due to the weight change, but it’s difficult to demonstrate that because you have weight change going on in the placebo arm as well, but for different reasons,” she said.

“So, I would say the data suggest there is some component of this that is attributable to weight, but we certainly can’t attribute all of the [effects] to weight change.”

Small studies involving animals have shown a direct effect of semaglutide on kidney hemodynamics “but they’re small and not definitive,” Dr. Colhoun added.

And although weight loss achieved through other measures such as lifestyle changes show a small benefit on eGFR, “interestingly, those studies showed no effect at all on albuminuria, whereas we see a really substantial effect on albuminuria with semaglutide,” Dr. Colhoun said.

Studies of weight loss through bariatric surgery have shown kidney benefits; however, those were in the context of type 2 diabetes, unlike the current analysis.

In terms of whether the benefits may extend to tirzepatide, the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, increasingly used in weight loss, results from another secondary analysis also show encouraging kidney benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, and there is ongoing research in patients with type 2 diabetes and those with obesity without diabetes, Dr. Colhoun noted.
 

Primary Prevention of CKD?

Limitations of the current analysis include that only about a fifth of participants in SELECT had an eGFR < 60  mL/min/1.73 m² or UACR ≥ 30 mg/g at baseline, suggesting a relatively low proportion of participants with kidney disease. 

Importantly, however, the kidney benefits observed in patients who are at such high risk of kidney disease but do not yet have diabetes or CKD, is encouraging, said Alberto Ortiz, MD, PhD, commenting on the study. Dr. Ortiz is chief of nephrology and the Hypertension Renal Unit, Health Research Institute of the Jiménez Díaz Foundation, Madrid, Spain.

“It is especially significant that protection was observed in participants with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and across UACR categories, ie, including people without CKD at baseline, in whom it appeared to decrease the incidence of de novo CKD,” Dr. Ortiz told this news organization.

“This suggests a potential role in primary prevention of CKD in this population,” he said.

To further investigate this, he said, “It would have been extremely interesting to assess whether there is a potential role for primary prevention of CKD in people without baseline CKD by assessing subgroup results for the no-CKD, low-risk KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes] category [of patients].”

SELECT was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Colhoun has reported consulting, research, and/or other relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche, and IQVIA. Dr. Ortiz has reported being a member of the European Renal Association council and Madrid Society of Nephrology (SOMANE), which developed a document in 2022 on the treatment of diabetic kidney disease sponsored by Novo Nordisk. He also reported collaborating with companies developing drugs for kidney disease.

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

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

DENVER — In addition to the established gastrointestinal side effects common with the highly effective anti-obesity drugs, there is growing discussion around their potential to contribute to the loss of lean mass, necessary to keep the metabolic engine running full-steam.

And although measures should be recommended to prevent those effects, experts also want to remind clinicians that the loss of lean mass is indeed expected with most weight loss interventions — when they’re successful.

“The bottom line is if you’re successful with weight loss, it’s a normal process that you’re going to lose some lean mass,” Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston, said during a presentation on the issue at Obesity Medicine 2024.

“It’s what we would expect to see if you successfully lost weight with bariatric surgery or with an intense lifestyle intervention,” said Dr. Fitch, past president of the Obesity Medicine Association.

“The difference is, there haven’t been nearly as many people being successful with weight loss with those other interventions,” she noted. “But with the popularity of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, people are hearing this for the first time and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, 30% of the weight loss is muscle mass — that’s horrible.’ “

An underlying goal in the treatment of obesity is the reduction of fat mass, and significant fat mass reduction can provide benefits exceeding the drawbacks resulting from lean mass loss, which have been reported in clinical trials of the GLP-1s semaglutide and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide tirzepatide to range from about 25% to 40%, respectively, of weight loss.

“Excess adiposity is what makes us sick — not our weight,” Dr. Fitch underscored. “The amount of fat that people are losing [with anti-obesity medications] is far more beneficial than maybe the potential that they’ve lost a little bit of lean mass,” she said.

She cited research suggesting that significant weight loss from bariatric surgery is linked to increases in life expectancy, cardiovascular risk reduction, cancer risk reduction, and a wide array of other positive effects — despite the loss of lean mass that occurs with the weight loss.

Opportunity for Awareness

The increased attention on issues of body composition accompanying weight loss importantly provides clinicians the chance to underscore to patients the importance of offsetting the loss of lean mass through strength training, nutritional choices, and other measures.

However, patients should be prepared that achieving these goals can be more challenging than expected, said Dr. Fitch.

“It can be very hard to be in an energy deficit (due to a weight loss regimen) and gain muscle mass,” she said. “When athletes are trying to gain muscle mass, they’re increasing their intake to do so. It doesn’t come naturally in today’s world.”

Nevertheless, patients can be reassured that the losses can be reversed with some effort, Dr. Fitch noted.

She cautioned that for those who succeed in building or rebuilding lean mass, the evidence may be reflected on the scale, with numbers going up, not down — something they may not wish to see.

“Patients tend to freak out when they see the scale going up after losing all of that weight, but you can reassure them that it’s okay — this is healthier weight gain.”

Special Considerations in Older Patients

Efforts at staving off lean mass loss are particularly important in older patients, who are already most vulnerable to experiencing it naturally with age, even if not on a weight loss regimen.

But Dr. Fitch offered that age does not necessarily have to be a barrier in tackling those effects.

She described two cases of treating patients in their mid-70s, a male and female, with GLP-1s for obesity. Not only were they able to achieve substantial reductions in body mass index over nearly a year on treatment, but they were also able to avoid skeletal muscle mass loss during a period when it would have likely naturally occurred.

She noted the need to augment strength training with protein intake to help build muscle, citing recommendations including consumption of 1.4-2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight for building muscle and maintaining muscle mass.

Importantly, “make sure patients aren’t too appetite suppressed so they can keep up with their nutrition,” Dr. Fitch said.

A key condition to watch for in these patients is sarcopenia. Definitions of sarcopenia vary, but it is distinguished by low skeletal muscle mass and either low muscle strength — measured, for instance, with hand grip — or low muscle performance, such as reduced walking speed or muscle power, Dr. Fitch said.

In such cases, patients may need special considerations, including avoiding significant caloric deficits and whether the risks of medication outweigh the benefits.

‘Super-Responders’ and Other Lean Mass Loss Scenarios

Further addressing the issues of body composition and weight loss at the meeting, Robert F. Kushner, MD, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted that one area of concern regarding lean mass loss is “super-responders” — patients who have exceptionally high weight loss on GLP-1s.

“We are concerned about individuals who experience very high weight loss responses to medication, [specifically] 25% or more weight loss, as well as individuals at higher risk of losing lean body mass [muscle mass], specifically people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s,” Dr. Kushner told this news organization.

“Lifestyle counseling, particularly regarding safety and body composition, is recommended in these patients,” he said, adding that in managing these patients, “the approach is to use close patient monitoring, dose reduction if needed, and emphasizing a high-protein diet accompanied by aerobic and resistance physical activity.”

Potentially dramatic lean mass loss can occur in obesity whether or not patients are on obesity medications. As evidence of this, Dr. Kushner cited a subanalysis of the Look AHEAD trial of 1019 overweight or obese patients who had a mean age of 58 years at baseline. Patients were randomized to either a physical activity and reduced calorie intervention group or simply education.

Although the results showed that fat losses in the intervention group were generally regained over 8 years, a striking, steady decline was observed in lean mass in both the intervention and control groups, including men and women.

Dr. Fitch disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Currax, Vivus, SideKick Health, Jenny Craig, Carmot, and Seca. Dr. Kushner is on the advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, Weight Watchers, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Altimmune.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — In addition to the established gastrointestinal side effects common with the highly effective anti-obesity drugs, there is growing discussion around their potential to contribute to the loss of lean mass, necessary to keep the metabolic engine running full-steam.

And although measures should be recommended to prevent those effects, experts also want to remind clinicians that the loss of lean mass is indeed expected with most weight loss interventions — when they’re successful.

“The bottom line is if you’re successful with weight loss, it’s a normal process that you’re going to lose some lean mass,” Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston, said during a presentation on the issue at Obesity Medicine 2024.

“It’s what we would expect to see if you successfully lost weight with bariatric surgery or with an intense lifestyle intervention,” said Dr. Fitch, past president of the Obesity Medicine Association.

“The difference is, there haven’t been nearly as many people being successful with weight loss with those other interventions,” she noted. “But with the popularity of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, people are hearing this for the first time and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, 30% of the weight loss is muscle mass — that’s horrible.’ “

An underlying goal in the treatment of obesity is the reduction of fat mass, and significant fat mass reduction can provide benefits exceeding the drawbacks resulting from lean mass loss, which have been reported in clinical trials of the GLP-1s semaglutide and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide tirzepatide to range from about 25% to 40%, respectively, of weight loss.

“Excess adiposity is what makes us sick — not our weight,” Dr. Fitch underscored. “The amount of fat that people are losing [with anti-obesity medications] is far more beneficial than maybe the potential that they’ve lost a little bit of lean mass,” she said.

She cited research suggesting that significant weight loss from bariatric surgery is linked to increases in life expectancy, cardiovascular risk reduction, cancer risk reduction, and a wide array of other positive effects — despite the loss of lean mass that occurs with the weight loss.

Opportunity for Awareness

The increased attention on issues of body composition accompanying weight loss importantly provides clinicians the chance to underscore to patients the importance of offsetting the loss of lean mass through strength training, nutritional choices, and other measures.

However, patients should be prepared that achieving these goals can be more challenging than expected, said Dr. Fitch.

“It can be very hard to be in an energy deficit (due to a weight loss regimen) and gain muscle mass,” she said. “When athletes are trying to gain muscle mass, they’re increasing their intake to do so. It doesn’t come naturally in today’s world.”

Nevertheless, patients can be reassured that the losses can be reversed with some effort, Dr. Fitch noted.

She cautioned that for those who succeed in building or rebuilding lean mass, the evidence may be reflected on the scale, with numbers going up, not down — something they may not wish to see.

“Patients tend to freak out when they see the scale going up after losing all of that weight, but you can reassure them that it’s okay — this is healthier weight gain.”

Special Considerations in Older Patients

Efforts at staving off lean mass loss are particularly important in older patients, who are already most vulnerable to experiencing it naturally with age, even if not on a weight loss regimen.

But Dr. Fitch offered that age does not necessarily have to be a barrier in tackling those effects.

She described two cases of treating patients in their mid-70s, a male and female, with GLP-1s for obesity. Not only were they able to achieve substantial reductions in body mass index over nearly a year on treatment, but they were also able to avoid skeletal muscle mass loss during a period when it would have likely naturally occurred.

She noted the need to augment strength training with protein intake to help build muscle, citing recommendations including consumption of 1.4-2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight for building muscle and maintaining muscle mass.

Importantly, “make sure patients aren’t too appetite suppressed so they can keep up with their nutrition,” Dr. Fitch said.

A key condition to watch for in these patients is sarcopenia. Definitions of sarcopenia vary, but it is distinguished by low skeletal muscle mass and either low muscle strength — measured, for instance, with hand grip — or low muscle performance, such as reduced walking speed or muscle power, Dr. Fitch said.

In such cases, patients may need special considerations, including avoiding significant caloric deficits and whether the risks of medication outweigh the benefits.

‘Super-Responders’ and Other Lean Mass Loss Scenarios

Further addressing the issues of body composition and weight loss at the meeting, Robert F. Kushner, MD, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted that one area of concern regarding lean mass loss is “super-responders” — patients who have exceptionally high weight loss on GLP-1s.

“We are concerned about individuals who experience very high weight loss responses to medication, [specifically] 25% or more weight loss, as well as individuals at higher risk of losing lean body mass [muscle mass], specifically people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s,” Dr. Kushner told this news organization.

“Lifestyle counseling, particularly regarding safety and body composition, is recommended in these patients,” he said, adding that in managing these patients, “the approach is to use close patient monitoring, dose reduction if needed, and emphasizing a high-protein diet accompanied by aerobic and resistance physical activity.”

Potentially dramatic lean mass loss can occur in obesity whether or not patients are on obesity medications. As evidence of this, Dr. Kushner cited a subanalysis of the Look AHEAD trial of 1019 overweight or obese patients who had a mean age of 58 years at baseline. Patients were randomized to either a physical activity and reduced calorie intervention group or simply education.

Although the results showed that fat losses in the intervention group were generally regained over 8 years, a striking, steady decline was observed in lean mass in both the intervention and control groups, including men and women.

Dr. Fitch disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Currax, Vivus, SideKick Health, Jenny Craig, Carmot, and Seca. Dr. Kushner is on the advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, Weight Watchers, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Altimmune.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — In addition to the established gastrointestinal side effects common with the highly effective anti-obesity drugs, there is growing discussion around their potential to contribute to the loss of lean mass, necessary to keep the metabolic engine running full-steam.

And although measures should be recommended to prevent those effects, experts also want to remind clinicians that the loss of lean mass is indeed expected with most weight loss interventions — when they’re successful.

“The bottom line is if you’re successful with weight loss, it’s a normal process that you’re going to lose some lean mass,” Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston, said during a presentation on the issue at Obesity Medicine 2024.

“It’s what we would expect to see if you successfully lost weight with bariatric surgery or with an intense lifestyle intervention,” said Dr. Fitch, past president of the Obesity Medicine Association.

“The difference is, there haven’t been nearly as many people being successful with weight loss with those other interventions,” she noted. “But with the popularity of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, people are hearing this for the first time and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, 30% of the weight loss is muscle mass — that’s horrible.’ “

An underlying goal in the treatment of obesity is the reduction of fat mass, and significant fat mass reduction can provide benefits exceeding the drawbacks resulting from lean mass loss, which have been reported in clinical trials of the GLP-1s semaglutide and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide tirzepatide to range from about 25% to 40%, respectively, of weight loss.

“Excess adiposity is what makes us sick — not our weight,” Dr. Fitch underscored. “The amount of fat that people are losing [with anti-obesity medications] is far more beneficial than maybe the potential that they’ve lost a little bit of lean mass,” she said.

She cited research suggesting that significant weight loss from bariatric surgery is linked to increases in life expectancy, cardiovascular risk reduction, cancer risk reduction, and a wide array of other positive effects — despite the loss of lean mass that occurs with the weight loss.

Opportunity for Awareness

The increased attention on issues of body composition accompanying weight loss importantly provides clinicians the chance to underscore to patients the importance of offsetting the loss of lean mass through strength training, nutritional choices, and other measures.

However, patients should be prepared that achieving these goals can be more challenging than expected, said Dr. Fitch.

“It can be very hard to be in an energy deficit (due to a weight loss regimen) and gain muscle mass,” she said. “When athletes are trying to gain muscle mass, they’re increasing their intake to do so. It doesn’t come naturally in today’s world.”

Nevertheless, patients can be reassured that the losses can be reversed with some effort, Dr. Fitch noted.

She cautioned that for those who succeed in building or rebuilding lean mass, the evidence may be reflected on the scale, with numbers going up, not down — something they may not wish to see.

“Patients tend to freak out when they see the scale going up after losing all of that weight, but you can reassure them that it’s okay — this is healthier weight gain.”

Special Considerations in Older Patients

Efforts at staving off lean mass loss are particularly important in older patients, who are already most vulnerable to experiencing it naturally with age, even if not on a weight loss regimen.

But Dr. Fitch offered that age does not necessarily have to be a barrier in tackling those effects.

She described two cases of treating patients in their mid-70s, a male and female, with GLP-1s for obesity. Not only were they able to achieve substantial reductions in body mass index over nearly a year on treatment, but they were also able to avoid skeletal muscle mass loss during a period when it would have likely naturally occurred.

She noted the need to augment strength training with protein intake to help build muscle, citing recommendations including consumption of 1.4-2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight for building muscle and maintaining muscle mass.

Importantly, “make sure patients aren’t too appetite suppressed so they can keep up with their nutrition,” Dr. Fitch said.

A key condition to watch for in these patients is sarcopenia. Definitions of sarcopenia vary, but it is distinguished by low skeletal muscle mass and either low muscle strength — measured, for instance, with hand grip — or low muscle performance, such as reduced walking speed or muscle power, Dr. Fitch said.

In such cases, patients may need special considerations, including avoiding significant caloric deficits and whether the risks of medication outweigh the benefits.

‘Super-Responders’ and Other Lean Mass Loss Scenarios

Further addressing the issues of body composition and weight loss at the meeting, Robert F. Kushner, MD, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted that one area of concern regarding lean mass loss is “super-responders” — patients who have exceptionally high weight loss on GLP-1s.

“We are concerned about individuals who experience very high weight loss responses to medication, [specifically] 25% or more weight loss, as well as individuals at higher risk of losing lean body mass [muscle mass], specifically people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s,” Dr. Kushner told this news organization.

“Lifestyle counseling, particularly regarding safety and body composition, is recommended in these patients,” he said, adding that in managing these patients, “the approach is to use close patient monitoring, dose reduction if needed, and emphasizing a high-protein diet accompanied by aerobic and resistance physical activity.”

Potentially dramatic lean mass loss can occur in obesity whether or not patients are on obesity medications. As evidence of this, Dr. Kushner cited a subanalysis of the Look AHEAD trial of 1019 overweight or obese patients who had a mean age of 58 years at baseline. Patients were randomized to either a physical activity and reduced calorie intervention group or simply education.

Although the results showed that fat losses in the intervention group were generally regained over 8 years, a striking, steady decline was observed in lean mass in both the intervention and control groups, including men and women.

Dr. Fitch disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Currax, Vivus, SideKick Health, Jenny Craig, Carmot, and Seca. Dr. Kushner is on the advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, Weight Watchers, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Altimmune.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.