TBD Meeting (3270-21)

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

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

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

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

It’s a problem many clinicians would love to have: A whole variety of new or emerging therapeutic options to use in the care of their patients.

In a session titled “Hemophilia Update: Our Cup Runneth Over,” presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, experts in the treatment of bleeding disorders discussed the optimal use of factor concentrates in people with hemophilia, new and investigational alternatives to factor concentrates, and the promise of long-time control or even cure with gene therapy.
 

Factor concentrates

Prophylaxis – as opposed to episodic treatment – is the standard of care in the use of factor concentrates in patients with hemophilia, said Ming Y. Lim, MB BChir, from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

“Effective prophylaxis is an ongoing collaborative effort that relies on shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician,” she told the audience.

As the complexity of therapeutic options, including gene therapy, continues to increase “it is critical that both patients and clinicians are actively involved in this collaborative process to optimize treatment and overall patient outcomes,” she added.

Historically, clinicians who treat patients with hemophilia aimed for trough levels of factor concentrates of at least 1% to prevent spontaneous joint bleeding. But as updated World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) guidelines now recommend, trough levels should be sufficient to prevent spontaneous bleeding based on the individual patient’s bleeding phenotype and activity levels, starting in the range between 3% and 5%, and going higher as necessary.

“The appropriate target trough level is that at which a person with hemophilia experiences zero bleeds while pursuing an active or sedentary lifestyle,” she said.

The choice of factor concentrates between standard and extended half-life products will depend on multiple factors, including availability, patient and provider preferences, cost, and access to assays for monitoring extended half-life products.

The prolonged action of extended half-life products translates into dosing twice per week or every 3 days for factor VIII concentrates, and every 7-14 days for factor IX concentrates.

“All available extended half-life products have been shown to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of bleeds, with no evidence for any clinical safety issues,” Dr. Lim said.

There are theoretical concerns, however, regarding the lifelong use of PEGylated clotting factor concentrates, leading to some variations in the regulatory approval for some PEGylated product intended for bleeding prophylaxis in children with hemophilia, she noted.

The pharmacokinetics of prophylaxis with factor concentrates can vary according to age, body mass, blood type, and von Willebrand factor levels, so WFH guidelines recommend pharmacokinetic assessment of people with hemophilia for optimization of prophylaxis, she said.
 

Factor mimetic and rebalancing therapies

With the commercial availability of one factor mimetic for treatment of hemophilia A and with other factor mimetics and rebalancing therapies such as fitusiran in the works, it raises the question, “Is this the beginning of the end of the use of factor?” said Alice Ma, MD, FACP, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Factors that may determine the answer to that question include the convenience of subcutaneous administration of factor VIII mimetics compared with intravenous delivery of factor concentrates, relative cost of factors versus nonfactor products, and safety.

She reviewed the current state of alternatives to factor concentrates, including the factor mimetic emicizumab (Hemlibra), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for bleeding prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors, and is currently the only FDA-approved and licensed agent in its class.

Although emicizumab is widely regarded as a major advance, there are still unanswered clinical questions about its long-term use, Dr. Ma said. It is unknown, for example, whether it can prevent inhibitor development in previously untreated patients, and whether it can prevent intracranial hemorrhage in early years of life prior to the start of traditional prophylaxis.

It’s also unknown whether the factor VIII mimetic activity of emicizumab provides the same physiological benefits of coagulation factors, and the mechanism of thrombotic adverse events seen with this agent is still unclear, she added.

Other factor VIII mimetics in the pipeline include Mim8, which is being developed in Denmark by Novo Nordisk; this is a next-generation bispecific antibody with enhanced activity over emicizumab in both mouse models and in vitro hemophilia A assays. There are also two others bispecific antibodies designed to generate thrombin in preclinical development: BS-027125 (Bioverativ, U.S.) and NIBX-2101 (Takeda, Japan).

One of the most promising rebalancing factors in development is fitusiran, a small interfering RNA molecule that targets mRNA encoding antithrombin. As reported during ASH 2021, fitusiran was associated with an approximately 90% reduction in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia B, both with inhibitors, in two clinical trials. It was described at the meeting “as a great leap forward” in the treatment of hemophilia.

However, during its clinical development fitusiran has been consistently associated with thrombotic complications, Dr. Ma noted.

Also in development are several drugs targeted against tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), an anticoagulant protein that inhibits early phases of the procoagulant response. These agents included marstacimab (Pfizer, U.S.) which has been reported to normalize coagulation in plasma from hemophilia patients ex vivo and is currently being evaluated in patients with hemophilia A and B. There is also MG1113 (Green Cross Corporation, South Korea), a monoclonal antibody currently being tested in healthy volunteers, and BAX499 (Takeda), an aptamer derived from recombinant human TFPI that has been shown to inhibit TFPI in vitro and in vivo. However, development of this agent is on hold due to bleeding in study subjects, Dr. Ma noted.

“It is really notable that none of the replacements of factor have been free of thrombotic side effects,” Dr. Ma said. “And so I think it shows that you mess with Mother Nature at your peril. If you poke at the hemostasis-thrombosis arm and reduce antithrombotic proteins, and something triggers bleeding and you start to treat with a therapy for hemorrhage, it’s not a surprise that the first patient treated with fitusiran had a thrombosis, and I think we were just not potentially savvy enough to predict that.”
 

Considerable optimism over gene therapy

“There is now repeated proof of concept success for hemophilia A and B gene therapy. I think this supports the considerable optimism that’s really driving this field,” said Lindsey A. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

She reviewed adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector and AAV-mediated gene transfer approaches for hemophilia A and B.

There are currently four clinical trials of gene therapy for patients with hemophilia B, and five for patients with hemophilia A.

Because AAV efficiently targets the liver, most safety considerations about systemic AAV-mediated gene therapy are focused around potential hepatotoxicity, Dr. George said.

“Thankfully, short-term safety in the context of hemophilia has really been quite good,” she said.

Patients who undergo gene therapy for hemophilia are typically monitored twice weekly for 3 months for evidence of a capsid-specific CD8 T cell response, also called a capsid immune response. This presents with transient transaminase elevations (primarily ALT) and a decline in factor VIII and factor IX activity.

In clinical trials for patients with hemophilia, the capsid immune response has limited the efficacy of the therapy in the short term, but has not been a major cause for safety concerns. It is typically managed with glucocorticoids or other immunomodulating agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus.

There have also been reported cases of transaminase elevations without evidence of a capsid immune response, which warrants further investigation, she added.

Regarding efficacy, she noted that across clinical trials, the observed annualized bleeding rate has been less than 1%, despite heterogeneity of vectors and dosing used.

“That’s obviously quite optimistic for the field, but it also sort of raises the point that the heterogeneity at which we’re achieving the same phenotypic observations deserves a bit of a deeper dive,” she said.

Although hemophilia B gene transfer appears to be durable, the same cannot be said as yet for hemophilia A.

In canine models for hemophilia A and B, factor VIII and factor IX expression have been demonstrated for 8-10 years post vector, and in humans factor IX expression in patients with hemophilia B has been reported for up to 8 years.

In contrast, in the three hemophilia A trials in which patients have been followed for a minimum of 2 years, there was an approximately 40% loss of transgene vector from year 1 to year 2 with two vectors, but not a third.

Potential explanations for the loss of expression seen include an unfolded protein response, promoter silence, and an ongoing undetected or unmitigated immune response to AAV or to the transgene.

Regarding the future of gene therapy, Dr. George said that “we anticipate that there will be licensed vectors in the very near future, and predicted that gene therapy “will fulfill its promise to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care.”

Dr. Lim disclosed honoraria from several companies and travel support from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ma disclosed honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Dr. George disclosed FVIII-QQ patents and royalties, research funding from AskBio, and consulting activities/advisory board participation with others.

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

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Remarkable results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology for the investigational drug fitusiran to prevent bleeding in hemophilia patients.

Fitusiran is a small interfering RNA molecule that blocks antithrombin production in liver cells. Instead of taking the traditional approach in hemophilia treatment of boosting the coagulation cascade by replacing what’s missing, the idea of fitusiran is to short circuit the body’s anticoagulation system by targeting antithrombin.

Patients in two trials presented at the meeting, ATLAS-A/B and ATLAS-INH, had about a 90% reduction in their annualized bleeding rates when treated with prophylactic fitusiran, with half or more having no bleeds that required treatment during the 9-month trials. The median annualized bleeding rate fell to 0, trial investigators reported at the meeting.

These findings held in both hemophilia A and B with and without inhibitors, which are antibodies formed against exogenous clotting factors, and on subanalysis of spontaneous and joint bleeding rates. Reduced bleeding was associated with substantial improvements in health-care related quality of life, particularly in the physical health domain.
 

A question about study design

An audience member at ASH noted that the trials didn’t compare fitusiran against prophylactic treatment, which is standard of care for hemophilia, but rather against episodic treatment – concentrated factors or bypassing agents in subjects with inhibitors – once subjects in the control groups started to bleed.

Still, the numbers reported in the studies “have never been achieved with standard prophylaxis in the past.” Furthermore, standard prophylaxis requires lifelong intravenous infusions, sometimes several a week, said lead ATLAS-A/B investigator Alok Srivastava, MD, a hematologist at the Christian Medical College in Vellore, India.

Fitusiran was dosed in the studies as a once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous injection, so is much less bothersome. Also, it seems likely that some patients will only need dosing every other month. Maker Sanofi Genzyme is exploring lower and less frequent dosing to reduce thrombotic event risks that emerged in earlier studies, said Steven Pipe, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the senior investigator on ATLAS-A/B, which assessed fitusiran in patients without inhibitors.

Serious thrombotic events occurred in two fitusiran patients in the trials, one of which led to discontinuation.
 

No pricing information

Overall, “I think [fitusiran] is a tremendous leap forward” with “the opportunity to transform the day-to-day lives of patients,” particularly those with hemophilia B, who have limited treatment options, Dr. Pipe said.

If approved for the U.S. market, fitusiran will go up against the monoclonal antibody emicizumab (Hemlibra), a subcutaneous injection dosed weekly to monthly that mimics the function of factor VIII, so it’s approved only for hemophilia A with or without inhibitors.

Several audience members at ASH noted that a major consideration for fitusiran, if approved, will be its cost. There’s no pricing information yet, but annual list price for emicizumab is reported to be in the $500,000 range.

For hemophilia A, “it will come to what proves to be the most efficacious and safe, with also consideration given to pricing,” Nigel Key, MD, a hematologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a comment.
 

Trial details

In ATLAS-A/B, 80 male patients were randomized to prophylactic fitusiran once monthly and 40 to continue with clotting factors as needed for bleeding. Just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest hemophilia A. The mean age was 34 years, and subjects had a mean of about 12 bleeds in the 6 months leading up to the study.

Half of the fitusiran group had no treated bleeds during the study period versus only 5% in the control arm.

The five treatment emergent serious adverse events in the fitusiran arm included cholelithiasis in two subjects, plus cholecystitis, lower respiratory tract infection, and asthma in one each. Two fitusiran patients discontinued treatment because of cholecystitis and increased alanine aminotransferase.

ATLAS-INH had the same study design, and investigated patients with inhibitors; again, just over 20% had hemophilia B, the rest A. Mean age was 28 years, and patients had a mean of about 13 bleeds over the 6 months before the study. A total of 38 subjects were randomized to fitusiran, and 19 to bypassing agents as needed.

Almost 66% of fitusiran patients had no treated bleeds versus about 5% in the control arm.

none provided

There “was far less bleeding both for hemophilia A and B. It’s definitely a clinically meaningful and important” effect, said ATLAS-INH lead investigator Guy Young, MD, director of the hemostasis and thrombosis program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

He said the improved quality of life with fitusiran noted in both trials was “not surprising. If you only have to dose once a month subcutaneously, and you are not bleeding, of course your quality of life is going to improve.”

Both fitusiran thrombotic events occurred in ATLAS-INH. One patient developed deep vein thrombosis, subclavian vein thrombosis, and superficial thrombophlebitis but stayed in the study. Another discontinued after developing suspected spinal vessel thrombosis. Serious adverse events among five other subjects included acute cholecystitis and hematuria.

Fitusiran was associated with liver enzyme elevations in both trials, but they were generally mild to moderate.

The studies were funded by fitusiran maker Sanofi Genzyme. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Pipe is a consultant, Dr. Srivastava is a researcher and adviser, and Dr. Young is a speaker and consultant for the company and disclosed honoraria from it. Dr. Key had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was better at 2 years when polatuzumab-vedotin (Polivy) was added to a modified R-CHOP regimen for first-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there was no difference in overall survival in a phase 3 trial from maker Genentech/Roche.

Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.

The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”

“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Worth the cost?

The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.

With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.

“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.

With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”

“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.

Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”

The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).

PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
 

Defining a target population

R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.

Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.

Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.

Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.

On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.

Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
 

Ongoing trial in the elderly

Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.

The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.

They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.

The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was better at 2 years when polatuzumab-vedotin (Polivy) was added to a modified R-CHOP regimen for first-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there was no difference in overall survival in a phase 3 trial from maker Genentech/Roche.

Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.

The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”

“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Worth the cost?

The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.

With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.

“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.

With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”

“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.

Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”

The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).

PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
 

Defining a target population

R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.

Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.

Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.

Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.

On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.

Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
 

Ongoing trial in the elderly

Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.

The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.

They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.

The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was better at 2 years when polatuzumab-vedotin (Polivy) was added to a modified R-CHOP regimen for first-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there was no difference in overall survival in a phase 3 trial from maker Genentech/Roche.

Two-year progression free survival (PFS) was 76.7% for the 440 patients randomized to polatuzumab-vedotin (PV) add-on, versus 70.2% for the 439 randomized to R-CHOP, which translated to a 27% reduction in the risk of progression, relapse, or death (P = .02). However, overall survival (OS) at 2 years was just under 89% in both arms of the trial, dubbed POLARIX. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms.

The investigators swapped out the vincristine in R-CHOP for PV to avoid overlapping neurotoxic side effects and called their modified regimen “pola-R-CHP.”

“We believe these results support use of pola-R-CHP in the initial management of patients with DLBCL,” senior investigator Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center in New York, said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The study (ASH 2021 abstract LBA-1), was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Worth the cost?

The investigators reported that the median follow up of 28.2 months may simply have been too short to see if the PFS benefit translates into better overall survival. Also, newer treatments for relapsed/refractory disease might have masked any OS benefit.

With the PFS benefit, however, “what we think we are seeing is a deeper, more profound complete remission that hopefully will translate into [better] overall survival, but it may be a while until that can be demonstrated,” said Jane N. Winter, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, who moderated Dr. Salles’ presentation.

“If the improvement in PFS at 2 years represents a true higher cure rate and plateau rather than a simple delay in relapse,” the “results from the POLARIX trial are likely to be practice-changing,” blood cancer specialist Ajay K. Gopal, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization when asked for comment.

With additional OS results pending, an audience member at ASH wondered if “the cost of this highly expensive monoclonal antibody drug conjugate is worth the small improvement in PFS.”

“We have to further study this point, but at this moment what is important is to have a treatment with better efficacy and no more toxicity” than R-CHOP, lead investigator Herve Tilly, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the University of Rouen, France, said at the meeting.

Dr. Gopal said the cost concerns are legitimate, but also pointed out that they “may be somewhat offset by the potential reduction in downstream use of expensive cellular therapies.”

The findings support his assertion. With reduced PFS, R-CHOP subjects were more likely than were pola-R-CHP subjects to go on to subsequent lines of therapy (30.3% versus 22.5%).

PV is already approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with bendamustine and rituximab after failure of at least two previous regimens.
 

Defining a target population

R-CHOP – rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – has been the first-line standard of care for DLBCL for 2 decades, but it cures only about 60%-70% of patients. Researchers have tried for years to improve the cure rate by adding novel agents and other means, but outcomes haven’t been clinically meaningful, the investigators explained.

Polatuzumab, the antibody component of PV, zeroes in on a ubiquitous target on mature B-cell lymphomas, delivering vedotin, a potent microtubule inhibitor, directly to tumor cells.

Study subjects were treatment naive and a median of 65 years old with intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. About a third had activated B-cell–like DLBCL, and almost two-thirds had baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores between 3 and 5.

Each arm of the trial underwent six treatment cycles, plus two cycles of rituximab monotherapy.

On subgroup analysis, PFS benefit clustered among higher risk patients, namely patients older than 60 years, those with IPI scores between 3 and 5, and patients with the activated B-cell–like subtype.

Younger patients, subjects with lower IPI scores, patients with bulky disease, and those who had germinal-center B-cell–like DLBCL “did not show a clear [PFS] benefit,” the study team said.
 

Ongoing trial in the elderly

Adverse events in POLARIX were in line with the component drugs’ known toxicity profiles, with no new safety signals identified.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (28.3% in the pola-R-CHP group and 30.8% in the R-CHOP group), febrile neutropenia (13.8% and 8.0%, respectively), and anemia (12.0% and 8.4%). A bit over 6% of subjects in both arms discontinued because of adverse events.

The higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with pola-R-CHP “did not translate into a higher overall incidence of infection, treatment discontinuation, or dose reductions,” the investigators said.

They noted that patients with lymphoma arising from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, those with a primary mediastinal lymphoma, and people older than 80 years were not included in the study. A phase 3 trial in patients 75 years and up is recruiting.

The work was funded by PV maker Genentech/Roche. Many of the investigators disclosed ties to the companies, including Dr. Tilly, an adviser and speaker for Roche, and Dr. Salles, an adviser for Genentech. Three investigators were Genentech employees. Dr. Gopal is a consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Winter did not have any ties to the companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

Tumor biology and socioeconomics only partly explain why acute lymphoblastic leukemia survival outcomes are worse for young Hispanic and Black patients than White patients, but they don’t explain it entirely, according to a report at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Among almost 25,000 children and young adults up to 31 years old, all of whom participated in Children’s Oncology Group studies since 2004, 5-year event free survival (EFS) was 87.4% for White patients, 82.8% for Hispanic patients, and 81.9% for Black patients.

When socioeconomics and disease characteristics such as CNS involvement, white blood cell lineage, and induction status were taken into account, the risk of having a survival event fell from 37% to 11% higher for Hispanic patients versus White patients but from 45% to 32% for Black patients versus White patients.

However, there was no explicit adjustment in the study for acuity at presentation, body mass index, adherence to protocols, or Philadelphia chromosome (PH)-like disease, which is more common among Hispanic patients.

Even so, lead investigator Sumit Gupta, MD, a pediatric blood cancer specialist at the University of Toronto, said that even with the potential confounders, lingering differences in outcomes raise questions about equal access to care and other matters, and suggest that there are still “uncomfortable things to consider, things like ... structural racism” and a system that delivers “systemically different care to patients across racial” groups.

Another report presented at the meeting with 295 patients 18-40 years old found that Hispanic patients had 3-year overall survival comparable to that of White patients despite a higher prevalence of PH-like disease, perhaps because Hispanic patients had higher treatment adherence than did White patients at 76% versus 56%, said lead investigator Lori Muffly, MD, a bone and marrow transplant specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, Hispanic ALL patients were underrepresented in the study because the investigators didn’t recruit in Texas and Florida, states with higher percentages of young Hispanic ALL patients, and recruitment in California fell short of the prevalence of young Hispanic patients in that state. The work was a substudy of CALGB 10403, a trial of pediatric regimens in adolescents and young adults.

“It’s a relatively easy maneuver, going to where the patients are. When groups are thinking about multicenter trials, it has to be part of the dialogue from the beginning,” Dr. Muffly said.

Black patients in the review had fewer days in treatment and a higher prevalence of T-cell disease, and didn’t do as well as other groups.

Together, the studies “offer insight into the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparities in care among young people with” ALL, said Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, who moderated the presentations.

Dr. Gupta and his team found outcome differences only in relapsed B-cell ALL, not T-cell disease. B-cell disease has a more rigorous maintenance schedule, so it could be that there’s a difference in sticking to follow-up between various groups or less rigorous monitoring by pediatric oncologists in some groups, he said.

Dr. Gupta’s study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Muffly didn’t report a funding source, but reported ties to Pfizer, Amgen, and other companies. Dr. Gupta is involved with Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

aotto@mdedge.com

Tumor biology and socioeconomics only partly explain why acute lymphoblastic leukemia survival outcomes are worse for young Hispanic and Black patients than White patients, but they don’t explain it entirely, according to a report at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Among almost 25,000 children and young adults up to 31 years old, all of whom participated in Children’s Oncology Group studies since 2004, 5-year event free survival (EFS) was 87.4% for White patients, 82.8% for Hispanic patients, and 81.9% for Black patients.

When socioeconomics and disease characteristics such as CNS involvement, white blood cell lineage, and induction status were taken into account, the risk of having a survival event fell from 37% to 11% higher for Hispanic patients versus White patients but from 45% to 32% for Black patients versus White patients.

However, there was no explicit adjustment in the study for acuity at presentation, body mass index, adherence to protocols, or Philadelphia chromosome (PH)-like disease, which is more common among Hispanic patients.

Even so, lead investigator Sumit Gupta, MD, a pediatric blood cancer specialist at the University of Toronto, said that even with the potential confounders, lingering differences in outcomes raise questions about equal access to care and other matters, and suggest that there are still “uncomfortable things to consider, things like ... structural racism” and a system that delivers “systemically different care to patients across racial” groups.

Another report presented at the meeting with 295 patients 18-40 years old found that Hispanic patients had 3-year overall survival comparable to that of White patients despite a higher prevalence of PH-like disease, perhaps because Hispanic patients had higher treatment adherence than did White patients at 76% versus 56%, said lead investigator Lori Muffly, MD, a bone and marrow transplant specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, Hispanic ALL patients were underrepresented in the study because the investigators didn’t recruit in Texas and Florida, states with higher percentages of young Hispanic ALL patients, and recruitment in California fell short of the prevalence of young Hispanic patients in that state. The work was a substudy of CALGB 10403, a trial of pediatric regimens in adolescents and young adults.

“It’s a relatively easy maneuver, going to where the patients are. When groups are thinking about multicenter trials, it has to be part of the dialogue from the beginning,” Dr. Muffly said.

Black patients in the review had fewer days in treatment and a higher prevalence of T-cell disease, and didn’t do as well as other groups.

Together, the studies “offer insight into the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparities in care among young people with” ALL, said Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, who moderated the presentations.

Dr. Gupta and his team found outcome differences only in relapsed B-cell ALL, not T-cell disease. B-cell disease has a more rigorous maintenance schedule, so it could be that there’s a difference in sticking to follow-up between various groups or less rigorous monitoring by pediatric oncologists in some groups, he said.

Dr. Gupta’s study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Muffly didn’t report a funding source, but reported ties to Pfizer, Amgen, and other companies. Dr. Gupta is involved with Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

aotto@mdedge.com

Tumor biology and socioeconomics only partly explain why acute lymphoblastic leukemia survival outcomes are worse for young Hispanic and Black patients than White patients, but they don’t explain it entirely, according to a report at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Among almost 25,000 children and young adults up to 31 years old, all of whom participated in Children’s Oncology Group studies since 2004, 5-year event free survival (EFS) was 87.4% for White patients, 82.8% for Hispanic patients, and 81.9% for Black patients.

When socioeconomics and disease characteristics such as CNS involvement, white blood cell lineage, and induction status were taken into account, the risk of having a survival event fell from 37% to 11% higher for Hispanic patients versus White patients but from 45% to 32% for Black patients versus White patients.

However, there was no explicit adjustment in the study for acuity at presentation, body mass index, adherence to protocols, or Philadelphia chromosome (PH)-like disease, which is more common among Hispanic patients.

Even so, lead investigator Sumit Gupta, MD, a pediatric blood cancer specialist at the University of Toronto, said that even with the potential confounders, lingering differences in outcomes raise questions about equal access to care and other matters, and suggest that there are still “uncomfortable things to consider, things like ... structural racism” and a system that delivers “systemically different care to patients across racial” groups.

Another report presented at the meeting with 295 patients 18-40 years old found that Hispanic patients had 3-year overall survival comparable to that of White patients despite a higher prevalence of PH-like disease, perhaps because Hispanic patients had higher treatment adherence than did White patients at 76% versus 56%, said lead investigator Lori Muffly, MD, a bone and marrow transplant specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, Hispanic ALL patients were underrepresented in the study because the investigators didn’t recruit in Texas and Florida, states with higher percentages of young Hispanic ALL patients, and recruitment in California fell short of the prevalence of young Hispanic patients in that state. The work was a substudy of CALGB 10403, a trial of pediatric regimens in adolescents and young adults.

“It’s a relatively easy maneuver, going to where the patients are. When groups are thinking about multicenter trials, it has to be part of the dialogue from the beginning,” Dr. Muffly said.

Black patients in the review had fewer days in treatment and a higher prevalence of T-cell disease, and didn’t do as well as other groups.

Together, the studies “offer insight into the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparities in care among young people with” ALL, said Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, who moderated the presentations.

Dr. Gupta and his team found outcome differences only in relapsed B-cell ALL, not T-cell disease. B-cell disease has a more rigorous maintenance schedule, so it could be that there’s a difference in sticking to follow-up between various groups or less rigorous monitoring by pediatric oncologists in some groups, he said.

Dr. Gupta’s study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Muffly didn’t report a funding source, but reported ties to Pfizer, Amgen, and other companies. Dr. Gupta is involved with Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

aotto@mdedge.com

Tisagenlecleucel failed to outperform standard of care treatment when given as a second-line treatment for certain patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.

Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.

Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.

“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.

Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.

The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.

About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.

The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.

“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”

Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.

The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.

While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.

In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.

Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.

“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.

There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.

“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.

In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.

Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m² and 90 mg/m², respectively.

Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.

Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.

Tisagenlecleucel failed to outperform standard of care treatment when given as a second-line treatment for certain patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.

Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.

Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.

“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.

Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.

The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.

About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.

The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.

“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”

Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.

The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.

While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.

In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.

Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.

“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.

There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.

“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.

In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.

Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m² and 90 mg/m², respectively.

Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.

Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.

Tisagenlecleucel failed to outperform standard of care treatment when given as a second-line treatment for certain patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, according to results of a randomized, phase 3 trial.

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in this phase 3 BELINDA study, potentially because of study design decisions or imbalances in relevant patient characteristics, according to the study investigators.

Despite the negative result, insights from this study will inform the development of future clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy, said BELINDA investigator Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the David and Etta Jonas Center for Cellular Therapy, University of Chicago.

Findings of BELINDA, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, stand in contrast to two other high-profile CAR T-cell therapy studies also presented at the meeting. Those other studies demonstrated significant improvements in EFS in the second-line treatment of large B-cell lymphomas.

“All of us are excited to see that the other two trials were positive, and we were hoping that ours would be as well, but there are significant differences in the trial design,” Dr. Bishop said in a press conference held at the ASH meeting.

Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas after at least two other lines of systemic therapy.

The aim of the pivotal phase 3, randomized, multicenter BELINDA study was to evaluate tisa-cel earlier in the course of treatment for patients with more aggressive disease, according to Dr. Bishop.

About two-thirds of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured with first-line treatment. However, very poor outcomes are seen among patients with disease that does not respond to the initial treatment or that reoccurs shortly afterward, Dr. Bishop said.

The standard of care approach for those patients is second-line therapy, he noted, usually with combination chemoimmunotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant if the disease responds to chemotherapy.

“Unfortunately, only a minority of those patients will be found to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease and be able to go on to autologous stem cell transplantation,” Dr. Bishop said. “And even in that subgroup of patients, the outcomes are relatively poor.”

Accordingly, the phase 3 BELINDA study enrolled patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas that either did not respond to first-line treatment or that reoccurred within 12 months.

The primary endpoint of the study was EFS, defined as the time from randomization to either stable or progressive disease at or after a week 12 assessment or to any-cause death at any time.

While that primary endpoint was not met for tisa-cel versus standard of care therapy, two other randomized, phase 3 studies presented at the ASH meeting did demonstrate that CAR T-cell therapy extended EFS when given as a second-line lymphoma treatment.

In the randomized, phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) significantly improved EFS versus standard of care in the treatment of patients with large B-cell lymphoma refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of adequate first-line therapy, according to investigators.

Similarly, the investigators said that treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) led to a significant improvement in EFS in TRANSFORM, a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to first-line therapy or else relapsed within 12 months of that treatment.

“It’s very possible that either or both the patient characteristics and the study design is what led to the difference in the top-line study results,” lymphoma specialist Andrew M. Evens, DO, said in an interview.

There were substantial differences between the studies in terms of what was allowed as optional bridging therapy and salvage therapy, according to Dr. Evens, associate director for clinical services and director of the lymphoma program at Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, N.J.

“In ZUMA-7, they only allowed steroids as bridging therapy,” said Dr. Evens, who was not an investigator on any of the three second-line CAR T-cell studies.

In the BELINDA study, optional platinum-based chemotherapy bridging treatment allowed in one arm of the study could have potentially delayed tisa-cel infusion until after the week 6 assessment, study investigators reported in their ASH meeting abstract.

Differences in lymphodepleting therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy could have also played a role. According to Dr. Bishop, the total doses of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine in BELINDA were 900 mg/m2 and 75 mg/m2, respectively, while in the other two trials, doses were 1,500 mg/m² and 90 mg/m², respectively.

Lymphodepleting chemotherapy is “extremely important” in the success of CAR T-cell therapeutic approaches, he noted at the press conference.

Dr. Bishop reported receiving consultancy fees from Arcellx, Autolus Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR, Kite/Gilead, and Novartis. He also reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kite/Gilead.

ATLANTA – Older patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia positive for the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph+ALL) are often not fit enough to withstand intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplants, but remissions with alternative therapies are usually short lived.

Now, results from an ongoing study suggest that the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) dastatinib (Sprycel) with the bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) blinatumomab (Blincyto), together with prednisone, may significantly improve remission rates and prolong both progression-free and overall survival among older and/or less fit patients with Ph+ALL.

The new results were reported by investigators in the SWOG Cancer Research Network and come from a cohort of 25 patients with a median age of 73 years with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL or ALL with dasatinib-sensitive fusions of mutations (Ph-like ALL).

Nearly all (23 of 25 patients, 92%) had complete remissions, and 5 of 16 patients for whom minimal residual disease (MRD) data were available were MRD negative at day 28, said Anjali Advani, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, the estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 80%, and the estimated overall survival rate was 85%, the investigators reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I think the biggest question will be longer-term follow-up. We clearly see high remission rates in this population, but the issue is whether in these elderly patients who are not candidates for chemo we can prolong remission by the addition of other treatments, such as blinatumomab,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“The follow-up is reasonable at this point, and as we get longer follow-up, if the current 3-year survival estimates hold up, that would be very encouraging,” she said.
 

Early promise

A leukemia specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that the results are promising, but added that it’s too early to make definitive judgments about the efficacy of the combination.

“People have used just a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and prednisone in these patients and gotten remissions, but they just don’t last,” said Peter Emanuel, MD, from CHI St. Vincent Infirmary in Little Rock, Ark.

“The promise with this approach is that you’re getting a longer-lasting remission – maybe not a cure, but a longer-lasting remission – without having to use intensive chemotherapy,” he said.

“It’s still a pretty small study, so I think this is going to require a bigger trial, looking at more patients, but it’s certainly very encouraging and very promising,” he added.

Hanno Hock, MD, PhD, a leukemia researcher at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview that “the whole idea here is to add this newer agent, blinatumomab, to make those good initial responses more durable, and it looks like it is able to do that with very impressive initial data,” he said.

“The caveat is that this is still early, and one needs to wait and see how it all pans out, but it’s very well tolerated, and definitely the next logical step in trying to offer something to people who cannot tolerate more aggressive therapy such as transplant,” Dr. Hock added.
 

Study results

The new results come from a feasibility cohort of patients enrolled in the SWOG S1318 trial, which studied blinatumomab plus chemotherapy and prednisone in older patients with Ph-ALL, as well as blinatumomab, dasatinib, and prednisone in older adults with Ph+ ALL.

Patients 65 and older with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory Ph+ALL or Ph-like ALL and no central nervous system disease were eligible for the arm of the trial described here. All patients with data reported in this analysis had newly diagnosed ALL.

Patients first received a single induction cycle of dasatinib and prednisone and were then evaluated for response. Patients with a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) would then undergo prednisone tapering while continuing dasatinib until day 84. Patients without a CR or CRi at day 28 who had remissions by day 56 then also continued dasatinib until day 84.

Those patients still in remission at day 84 went on to three cycles of blinatumomab and dasatinib, followed by dasatinib and prednisone maintenance until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients may remain on maintenance for up to 10 years after registration.

Patients who do not have a CR or CRi by day 84 can receive reinduction with up to two total cycles of blinatumomab, with those who get a remission moving on to the blinatumomab/ dasatinib combination and those who do not going off protocol.

Of the 25 patients, 23 had a CR following dasatinib/prednisone induction. As noted, 5 of 16 patients evaluable for MRD were MRD negative.

Four patients did not receive postremission therapy, two because of adverse events, one who went on to transplant, and one because of insurance issues.

In a safety review early in the study, 4 of 12 evaluable patients were found to have dose-limiting toxicities, including one case each of grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (in a single patient), hypertension, dyspnea, and hyperglycemia.

These adverse events were deemed acceptable by both U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute reviewers, and this arm of the study was allowed to continue, Dr. Advani noted.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Advani disclosed financial relationships with several companies. Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Hock have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Older patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia positive for the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph+ALL) are often not fit enough to withstand intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplants, but remissions with alternative therapies are usually short lived.

Now, results from an ongoing study suggest that the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) dastatinib (Sprycel) with the bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) blinatumomab (Blincyto), together with prednisone, may significantly improve remission rates and prolong both progression-free and overall survival among older and/or less fit patients with Ph+ALL.

The new results were reported by investigators in the SWOG Cancer Research Network and come from a cohort of 25 patients with a median age of 73 years with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL or ALL with dasatinib-sensitive fusions of mutations (Ph-like ALL).

Nearly all (23 of 25 patients, 92%) had complete remissions, and 5 of 16 patients for whom minimal residual disease (MRD) data were available were MRD negative at day 28, said Anjali Advani, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, the estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 80%, and the estimated overall survival rate was 85%, the investigators reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I think the biggest question will be longer-term follow-up. We clearly see high remission rates in this population, but the issue is whether in these elderly patients who are not candidates for chemo we can prolong remission by the addition of other treatments, such as blinatumomab,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“The follow-up is reasonable at this point, and as we get longer follow-up, if the current 3-year survival estimates hold up, that would be very encouraging,” she said.
 

Early promise

A leukemia specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that the results are promising, but added that it’s too early to make definitive judgments about the efficacy of the combination.

“People have used just a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and prednisone in these patients and gotten remissions, but they just don’t last,” said Peter Emanuel, MD, from CHI St. Vincent Infirmary in Little Rock, Ark.

“The promise with this approach is that you’re getting a longer-lasting remission – maybe not a cure, but a longer-lasting remission – without having to use intensive chemotherapy,” he said.

“It’s still a pretty small study, so I think this is going to require a bigger trial, looking at more patients, but it’s certainly very encouraging and very promising,” he added.

Hanno Hock, MD, PhD, a leukemia researcher at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview that “the whole idea here is to add this newer agent, blinatumomab, to make those good initial responses more durable, and it looks like it is able to do that with very impressive initial data,” he said.

“The caveat is that this is still early, and one needs to wait and see how it all pans out, but it’s very well tolerated, and definitely the next logical step in trying to offer something to people who cannot tolerate more aggressive therapy such as transplant,” Dr. Hock added.
 

Study results

The new results come from a feasibility cohort of patients enrolled in the SWOG S1318 trial, which studied blinatumomab plus chemotherapy and prednisone in older patients with Ph-ALL, as well as blinatumomab, dasatinib, and prednisone in older adults with Ph+ ALL.

Patients 65 and older with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory Ph+ALL or Ph-like ALL and no central nervous system disease were eligible for the arm of the trial described here. All patients with data reported in this analysis had newly diagnosed ALL.

Patients first received a single induction cycle of dasatinib and prednisone and were then evaluated for response. Patients with a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) would then undergo prednisone tapering while continuing dasatinib until day 84. Patients without a CR or CRi at day 28 who had remissions by day 56 then also continued dasatinib until day 84.

Those patients still in remission at day 84 went on to three cycles of blinatumomab and dasatinib, followed by dasatinib and prednisone maintenance until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients may remain on maintenance for up to 10 years after registration.

Patients who do not have a CR or CRi by day 84 can receive reinduction with up to two total cycles of blinatumomab, with those who get a remission moving on to the blinatumomab/ dasatinib combination and those who do not going off protocol.

Of the 25 patients, 23 had a CR following dasatinib/prednisone induction. As noted, 5 of 16 patients evaluable for MRD were MRD negative.

Four patients did not receive postremission therapy, two because of adverse events, one who went on to transplant, and one because of insurance issues.

In a safety review early in the study, 4 of 12 evaluable patients were found to have dose-limiting toxicities, including one case each of grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (in a single patient), hypertension, dyspnea, and hyperglycemia.

These adverse events were deemed acceptable by both U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute reviewers, and this arm of the study was allowed to continue, Dr. Advani noted.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Advani disclosed financial relationships with several companies. Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Hock have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Older patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia positive for the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph+ALL) are often not fit enough to withstand intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplants, but remissions with alternative therapies are usually short lived.

Now, results from an ongoing study suggest that the combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) dastatinib (Sprycel) with the bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) blinatumomab (Blincyto), together with prednisone, may significantly improve remission rates and prolong both progression-free and overall survival among older and/or less fit patients with Ph+ALL.

The new results were reported by investigators in the SWOG Cancer Research Network and come from a cohort of 25 patients with a median age of 73 years with newly diagnosed Ph+ALL or ALL with dasatinib-sensitive fusions of mutations (Ph-like ALL).

Nearly all (23 of 25 patients, 92%) had complete remissions, and 5 of 16 patients for whom minimal residual disease (MRD) data were available were MRD negative at day 28, said Anjali Advani, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic.

At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, the estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 80%, and the estimated overall survival rate was 85%, the investigators reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I think the biggest question will be longer-term follow-up. We clearly see high remission rates in this population, but the issue is whether in these elderly patients who are not candidates for chemo we can prolong remission by the addition of other treatments, such as blinatumomab,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“The follow-up is reasonable at this point, and as we get longer follow-up, if the current 3-year survival estimates hold up, that would be very encouraging,” she said.
 

Early promise

A leukemia specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that the results are promising, but added that it’s too early to make definitive judgments about the efficacy of the combination.

“People have used just a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and prednisone in these patients and gotten remissions, but they just don’t last,” said Peter Emanuel, MD, from CHI St. Vincent Infirmary in Little Rock, Ark.

“The promise with this approach is that you’re getting a longer-lasting remission – maybe not a cure, but a longer-lasting remission – without having to use intensive chemotherapy,” he said.

“It’s still a pretty small study, so I think this is going to require a bigger trial, looking at more patients, but it’s certainly very encouraging and very promising,” he added.

Hanno Hock, MD, PhD, a leukemia researcher at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview that “the whole idea here is to add this newer agent, blinatumomab, to make those good initial responses more durable, and it looks like it is able to do that with very impressive initial data,” he said.

“The caveat is that this is still early, and one needs to wait and see how it all pans out, but it’s very well tolerated, and definitely the next logical step in trying to offer something to people who cannot tolerate more aggressive therapy such as transplant,” Dr. Hock added.
 

Study results

The new results come from a feasibility cohort of patients enrolled in the SWOG S1318 trial, which studied blinatumomab plus chemotherapy and prednisone in older patients with Ph-ALL, as well as blinatumomab, dasatinib, and prednisone in older adults with Ph+ ALL.

Patients 65 and older with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory Ph+ALL or Ph-like ALL and no central nervous system disease were eligible for the arm of the trial described here. All patients with data reported in this analysis had newly diagnosed ALL.

Patients first received a single induction cycle of dasatinib and prednisone and were then evaluated for response. Patients with a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) would then undergo prednisone tapering while continuing dasatinib until day 84. Patients without a CR or CRi at day 28 who had remissions by day 56 then also continued dasatinib until day 84.

Those patients still in remission at day 84 went on to three cycles of blinatumomab and dasatinib, followed by dasatinib and prednisone maintenance until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients may remain on maintenance for up to 10 years after registration.

Patients who do not have a CR or CRi by day 84 can receive reinduction with up to two total cycles of blinatumomab, with those who get a remission moving on to the blinatumomab/ dasatinib combination and those who do not going off protocol.

Of the 25 patients, 23 had a CR following dasatinib/prednisone induction. As noted, 5 of 16 patients evaluable for MRD were MRD negative.

Four patients did not receive postremission therapy, two because of adverse events, one who went on to transplant, and one because of insurance issues.

In a safety review early in the study, 4 of 12 evaluable patients were found to have dose-limiting toxicities, including one case each of grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (in a single patient), hypertension, dyspnea, and hyperglycemia.

These adverse events were deemed acceptable by both U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute reviewers, and this arm of the study was allowed to continue, Dr. Advani noted.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Advani disclosed financial relationships with several companies. Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Hock have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) bearing mutations in IDH1 who could not withstand the rigors of intensive therapy had improved event-free and overall survival when they were treated with the combination of ivosidenib (Tibsovo) and azacitidine (Onureg, Vidaza), compared with azacitidine alone.

The results come from the phase 3 AGILE trial. The ivosidenib-azacitidine (IVO-AZA) combination was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of treatment failure, relapse, or death, and 56% improvement in overall survival, reported Hartmut Döhner, MD, from Ulm (Germany) University Hospital.

Median overall survival was 24 months with the combination, compared with 7.9 months for azacitidine-placebo, translating into a hazard ratio for death with the IVO-AZA of 0.44 (P = .0005).

“The IVO-AZA combination was safe and tolerable, with fewer infections reported relative to placebo plus AZA. Additionally, the clinical benefit of the combination was supported by favorable health-related quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Döhner spoke at a press briefing prior to the presentation of the trial results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I’m really excited by the results from the AGILE trial,” commented Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami’s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, who moderated the briefing.

The results show “survival that’s three times longer for a combination of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in a very distinct population of patients who have an IDH1 mutation,” he said.

“The question that will arise is, if the standard of care is now to give azacitidine and venetoclax [Venclexta] to patients who don’t receive intensive chemotherapy in the inpatient setting, where does this trial end? And I would answer [by saying] that the combination of azacitidine is not truly nonintensive therapy, and it’s probably on a spectrum between nonintensive and intensive therapy, and probably closer to seven plus three than a lot of people recognize,” Dr. Sekeres said.

The combination of ivosidenib and azacitidine may therefore be a better choice for treatment of older patients with IDH1-mutated AML – particularly those with comorbidities – who may not be able to tolerate venetoclax plus azacitidine, he added.
 

AGILE results

For the analysis presented at the meeting, there was a data cutoff in March 2021, at which point 146 patients out of a planned 200 had been enrolled and randomly assigned. They received treatment with either oral ivosidenib 500 mg daily plus azacitidine 75 mg/m², delivered subcutaneously or intravenously, or azacitidine plus placebo.

In May 2021, after an interim analysis, the independent data-monitoring committee recommended a halt to the trial because of significant improvements in outcomes among patients assigned to the combination, and those data are reported at the meeting.

The median patient age was about 76 years in each group. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML, and about 25% had AML secondary to treatment, myelodysplastic syndrome, or myeloproliferative neoplasms. The majority of patients in each group had intermediate cytogenetic risk disease.

The analysis was by intention to treat, with patients who did not have complete remission (CR) by week 24 considered to have had an event on day 1 of randomization.

At the time of the interim analysis, with the longest follow-up out to 29 months (the investigators did not report median follow-up time for the study), there were significantly fewer study events – defined as treatment failure by week 24, relapse from remission, or death from any cause – in the ivosidenib/azacitidine combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.33 (P = .0011).

The EFS benefit and the overall survival benefit were consistent across subgroups, the researchers noted, including in patients with de novo disease, demographics, baseline cytogenetic risk status, World Health Organization AML classification, baseline white blood cell count, and baseline percentage of bone marrow blasts.

Clinical and hematologic responses also favored the combination, with a complete response (CR) rate of 34%, compared with 11% for azacitidine alone (odds ratio, 4.8; P < .0001), and respective overall response rates of 45% versus 14% (odds ratio, 7.2; P < .0001).

Health-related quality of life measures also trended better with the combination across all subscales, and were significantly better at day 1 of cycle 5 in the diarrhea and appetite loss domains.

Treatment-emergent adverse events included grade 2 or higher differentiation syndrome, which occurred in 14.1% of patients treated with IVO-AZA versus 8.2% treated with AZA alone. Grade 3 or higher QT interval prolongation was also more frequent with the combination, at 9.9% versus 4.1%.

Any-grade infections were less common with IVO-AZA, however, at 28.2% versus 49.3% with AZA alone. At the briefing, this news organization asked coinvestigator Stephane de Botton, MD, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, whether he could explain this seemingly paradoxical result.

He replied that the combination results in greater production of neutrophils and therefore better protection against infections, compared with azacitidine alone.

The study was funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals, now a part of Servier Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Döhner disclosed consultancy and other relationships with various companies. Dr. Sekeres disclosed consulting/advising for Novartis, Takea/Millennium, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

ATLANTA – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) bearing mutations in IDH1 who could not withstand the rigors of intensive therapy had improved event-free and overall survival when they were treated with the combination of ivosidenib (Tibsovo) and azacitidine (Onureg, Vidaza), compared with azacitidine alone.

The results come from the phase 3 AGILE trial. The ivosidenib-azacitidine (IVO-AZA) combination was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of treatment failure, relapse, or death, and 56% improvement in overall survival, reported Hartmut Döhner, MD, from Ulm (Germany) University Hospital.

Median overall survival was 24 months with the combination, compared with 7.9 months for azacitidine-placebo, translating into a hazard ratio for death with the IVO-AZA of 0.44 (P = .0005).

“The IVO-AZA combination was safe and tolerable, with fewer infections reported relative to placebo plus AZA. Additionally, the clinical benefit of the combination was supported by favorable health-related quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Döhner spoke at a press briefing prior to the presentation of the trial results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I’m really excited by the results from the AGILE trial,” commented Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami’s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, who moderated the briefing.

The results show “survival that’s three times longer for a combination of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in a very distinct population of patients who have an IDH1 mutation,” he said.

“The question that will arise is, if the standard of care is now to give azacitidine and venetoclax [Venclexta] to patients who don’t receive intensive chemotherapy in the inpatient setting, where does this trial end? And I would answer [by saying] that the combination of azacitidine is not truly nonintensive therapy, and it’s probably on a spectrum between nonintensive and intensive therapy, and probably closer to seven plus three than a lot of people recognize,” Dr. Sekeres said.

The combination of ivosidenib and azacitidine may therefore be a better choice for treatment of older patients with IDH1-mutated AML – particularly those with comorbidities – who may not be able to tolerate venetoclax plus azacitidine, he added.
 

AGILE results

For the analysis presented at the meeting, there was a data cutoff in March 2021, at which point 146 patients out of a planned 200 had been enrolled and randomly assigned. They received treatment with either oral ivosidenib 500 mg daily plus azacitidine 75 mg/m², delivered subcutaneously or intravenously, or azacitidine plus placebo.

In May 2021, after an interim analysis, the independent data-monitoring committee recommended a halt to the trial because of significant improvements in outcomes among patients assigned to the combination, and those data are reported at the meeting.

The median patient age was about 76 years in each group. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML, and about 25% had AML secondary to treatment, myelodysplastic syndrome, or myeloproliferative neoplasms. The majority of patients in each group had intermediate cytogenetic risk disease.

The analysis was by intention to treat, with patients who did not have complete remission (CR) by week 24 considered to have had an event on day 1 of randomization.

At the time of the interim analysis, with the longest follow-up out to 29 months (the investigators did not report median follow-up time for the study), there were significantly fewer study events – defined as treatment failure by week 24, relapse from remission, or death from any cause – in the ivosidenib/azacitidine combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.33 (P = .0011).

The EFS benefit and the overall survival benefit were consistent across subgroups, the researchers noted, including in patients with de novo disease, demographics, baseline cytogenetic risk status, World Health Organization AML classification, baseline white blood cell count, and baseline percentage of bone marrow blasts.

Clinical and hematologic responses also favored the combination, with a complete response (CR) rate of 34%, compared with 11% for azacitidine alone (odds ratio, 4.8; P < .0001), and respective overall response rates of 45% versus 14% (odds ratio, 7.2; P < .0001).

Health-related quality of life measures also trended better with the combination across all subscales, and were significantly better at day 1 of cycle 5 in the diarrhea and appetite loss domains.

Treatment-emergent adverse events included grade 2 or higher differentiation syndrome, which occurred in 14.1% of patients treated with IVO-AZA versus 8.2% treated with AZA alone. Grade 3 or higher QT interval prolongation was also more frequent with the combination, at 9.9% versus 4.1%.

Any-grade infections were less common with IVO-AZA, however, at 28.2% versus 49.3% with AZA alone. At the briefing, this news organization asked coinvestigator Stephane de Botton, MD, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, whether he could explain this seemingly paradoxical result.

He replied that the combination results in greater production of neutrophils and therefore better protection against infections, compared with azacitidine alone.

The study was funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals, now a part of Servier Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Döhner disclosed consultancy and other relationships with various companies. Dr. Sekeres disclosed consulting/advising for Novartis, Takea/Millennium, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

ATLANTA – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) bearing mutations in IDH1 who could not withstand the rigors of intensive therapy had improved event-free and overall survival when they were treated with the combination of ivosidenib (Tibsovo) and azacitidine (Onureg, Vidaza), compared with azacitidine alone.

The results come from the phase 3 AGILE trial. The ivosidenib-azacitidine (IVO-AZA) combination was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of treatment failure, relapse, or death, and 56% improvement in overall survival, reported Hartmut Döhner, MD, from Ulm (Germany) University Hospital.

Median overall survival was 24 months with the combination, compared with 7.9 months for azacitidine-placebo, translating into a hazard ratio for death with the IVO-AZA of 0.44 (P = .0005).

“The IVO-AZA combination was safe and tolerable, with fewer infections reported relative to placebo plus AZA. Additionally, the clinical benefit of the combination was supported by favorable health-related quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Döhner spoke at a press briefing prior to the presentation of the trial results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I’m really excited by the results from the AGILE trial,” commented Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami’s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, who moderated the briefing.

The results show “survival that’s three times longer for a combination of ivosidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in a very distinct population of patients who have an IDH1 mutation,” he said.

“The question that will arise is, if the standard of care is now to give azacitidine and venetoclax [Venclexta] to patients who don’t receive intensive chemotherapy in the inpatient setting, where does this trial end? And I would answer [by saying] that the combination of azacitidine is not truly nonintensive therapy, and it’s probably on a spectrum between nonintensive and intensive therapy, and probably closer to seven plus three than a lot of people recognize,” Dr. Sekeres said.

The combination of ivosidenib and azacitidine may therefore be a better choice for treatment of older patients with IDH1-mutated AML – particularly those with comorbidities – who may not be able to tolerate venetoclax plus azacitidine, he added.
 

AGILE results

For the analysis presented at the meeting, there was a data cutoff in March 2021, at which point 146 patients out of a planned 200 had been enrolled and randomly assigned. They received treatment with either oral ivosidenib 500 mg daily plus azacitidine 75 mg/m², delivered subcutaneously or intravenously, or azacitidine plus placebo.

In May 2021, after an interim analysis, the independent data-monitoring committee recommended a halt to the trial because of significant improvements in outcomes among patients assigned to the combination, and those data are reported at the meeting.

The median patient age was about 76 years in each group. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML, and about 25% had AML secondary to treatment, myelodysplastic syndrome, or myeloproliferative neoplasms. The majority of patients in each group had intermediate cytogenetic risk disease.

The analysis was by intention to treat, with patients who did not have complete remission (CR) by week 24 considered to have had an event on day 1 of randomization.

At the time of the interim analysis, with the longest follow-up out to 29 months (the investigators did not report median follow-up time for the study), there were significantly fewer study events – defined as treatment failure by week 24, relapse from remission, or death from any cause – in the ivosidenib/azacitidine combination, with a hazard ratio of 0.33 (P = .0011).

The EFS benefit and the overall survival benefit were consistent across subgroups, the researchers noted, including in patients with de novo disease, demographics, baseline cytogenetic risk status, World Health Organization AML classification, baseline white blood cell count, and baseline percentage of bone marrow blasts.

Clinical and hematologic responses also favored the combination, with a complete response (CR) rate of 34%, compared with 11% for azacitidine alone (odds ratio, 4.8; P < .0001), and respective overall response rates of 45% versus 14% (odds ratio, 7.2; P < .0001).

Health-related quality of life measures also trended better with the combination across all subscales, and were significantly better at day 1 of cycle 5 in the diarrhea and appetite loss domains.

Treatment-emergent adverse events included grade 2 or higher differentiation syndrome, which occurred in 14.1% of patients treated with IVO-AZA versus 8.2% treated with AZA alone. Grade 3 or higher QT interval prolongation was also more frequent with the combination, at 9.9% versus 4.1%.

Any-grade infections were less common with IVO-AZA, however, at 28.2% versus 49.3% with AZA alone. At the briefing, this news organization asked coinvestigator Stephane de Botton, MD, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, whether he could explain this seemingly paradoxical result.

He replied that the combination results in greater production of neutrophils and therefore better protection against infections, compared with azacitidine alone.

The study was funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals, now a part of Servier Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Döhner disclosed consultancy and other relationships with various companies. Dr. Sekeres disclosed consulting/advising for Novartis, Takea/Millennium, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

aotto@mdedge.com

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

aotto@mdedge.com

End-of-life discussions happen too late in the treatment of high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia, according to a review of 200 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The prognosis isn’t good for high-risk AML, defined in the study as either relapsing/recurrent disease or a diagnosis made past the age of 59 years. Almost 60% of the patients (114) died during the 7 years of the study, which started in 2014.

Therefore, it’s important to bring up end-of-life decisions when patients are still able to discuss them, so families aren’t left struggling to guess how aggressive their loved ones might have wanted their final care to be, said lead investigator Hannah Abrams, MD, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General. She presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Much of the time, however, end-of-life discussions come too late. The study team found that nearly 40% (45/114) of the patients who died during the study were not involved in their final code decisions, which most often were to administer comfort care only. Many patients were too ill to participate; the median time between the last code change and death was just 2 days.

Dr. Abrams said she’s seen how families agonize when patients haven’t addressed the issue beforehand. “Witnessing that made me think this is really important to look at. Having these conversations upfront is really important,” she said in an interview.

When asked for comment, hematologist-oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, chief of palliative care at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, agreed.

He called this issue a “missed opportunity for patient autonomy and self-determination. Patients with high-risk AML commonly experience rapid changes in their clinical condition, which catch everyone by surprise. Healthcare providers should do more to prepare patients and families, rather than allow them to be surprised,” Dr. Campbell said.

Part of the problem, Dr. Abrams said, is that end-of-life discussions can fall through the cracks amid urgent discussions about chemotherapy options and other matters.

“One of the biggest things to make this more feasible is to schedule and reimburse time in clinic for this to happen,” she said, noting a need to carve out and protect “15 minutes for patients and clinicians to talk about this.”

Another aspect is that patients are often overly optimistic about their prognoses, so end-of-life discussions don’t seem as pressing. Educational materials about the meaning of various code options and when they are appropriate could help, Dr. Abrams said.

As for the psychological impact of bringing up end-of-life decisions early on, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chief of the division of hematology at the University of Miami, stressed the importance of telling patients, “We are having this conversation because you are doing well, not because you are doing poorly, and this is the time to have it.”

“Sometimes it does take a sentinel event like an ICU stay before some people want to engage in that conversation, and unfortunately, that is often too late,” said Dr. Sekeres, who moderated Dr. Abrams’ presentation at the meeting.

Among other findings, Dr. Abrams and her team reported that at diagnosis, 86.0% of patients were full-code, and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57% (114/200) of patients experienced a code status transition, with a median of two transitions during their illness.

Among patients who died, older age and receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy were associated with earlier discussions about code status.

The next step in the project is to determine if palliative care consults yield earlier discussions and greater patient involvement.

There was no commercial funding for the study, and Dr. Abrams and Dr. Campbell didn’t have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Sekeres is an advisor to Novartis, Takeda, and BMS.

aotto@mdedge.com