PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Melflufen, a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, rapidly enters tumor cells and metabolizes to melphalan. In previous studies, melflufen was administered via central venous catheter (CVC). However, administration by peripheral venous catheter (PVC) may be preferable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PORT was a two-period, phase 2 crossover study of CVC versus PVC melflufen administration in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Adults with ≥ 2 prior therapies refractory to/intolerant of an immunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to weekly oral dexamethasone plus melflufen (40 mg) via CVC or PVC infusion on day 1 of 28-day cycle 1. In cycle 2, patients continued dexamethasone and crossed over to the other melflufen administration route. In cycle 3, all patients received melflufen until progression; PVC or CVC routes were allowed based upon investigator decision. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during and after melflufen infusion. Primary endpoints were melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-∞)) and frequency and severity of PVC-related local reactions. RESULTS: The 90% CIs for adjusted geometric mean ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters following CVC versus PVC administration were within the 0.8-1.25 bioequivalence range (Cmax 0.946 [90% CI: 0.849, 1.053]; AUC(0-t) 0.952 [90% CI: 0.861, 1.053]; AUC(0-∞) 0.955 [90% CI: 0.863, 1.058]). In both arms, adverse events were primarily hematological and similar; no phlebitis or local infusion-related reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: Melflufen PVC and CVC administrations are bioequivalent based on melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters. Melflufen via PVC was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or new safety signals and may represent an alternative route of administration.

ANCHOR: melflufen plus dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final results of a phase I/IIa study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

Efficacy and safety of melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from the randomized, open-label, phase III LIGHTHOUSE study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Melflufen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma refractory to prior alkylators: A subgroup analysis from the OCEAN study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival (OS), versus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the OCEAN study. Time to progression (TTP) <36 months after a prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was a negative prognostic factor for OS with melflufen. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated patients refractory to prior alkylators (e.g., cyclophosphamide and melphalan) in OCEAN. In 153 patients refractory to prior alkylators (melflufen, n = 78; pomalidomide, n = 75), the melflufen and pomalidomide arms had similar median PFS (5.6 months [95% CI, 4.2-8.3] vs. 4.7 months [95% CI, 3.1-7.3]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.63-1.33]) and OS (23.4 months [95% CI, 14.4-31.7] vs. 20.0 months [95% CI, 12.0-28.7]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.38]). Among alkylator-refractory patients with a TTP ≥ 36 months after a prior ASCT or no prior ASCT (melflufen, n = 54; pomalidomide, n = 53), the observed median PFS and OS were longer in the melflufen arm than the pomalidomide arm. The safety profile of melflufen was consistent with previous reports. These results suggest that melflufen is safe and effective in patients with alkylator-refractory disease, suggesting differentiated activity from other alkylators.

Benefit Versus Risk Assessment of Melflufen and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analyses From Longer Follow-up of the OCEAN and HORIZON Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) but directionally different overall survival (OS) favoring pomalidomide (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10) in OCEAN. METHODS: These analyses further investigated prognostic subgroups impacting survival in updated data from the randomized, phase 3 OCEAN study (NCT03151811; date: February 3, 2022) and the phase 2 HORIZON study (NCT02963493; date: February 2, 2022). RESULTS: In OCEAN, subgroups prognostic for OS were age (P = .011; <65 years favored pomalidomide) and no previous autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or progression >36 months after ASCT (P = .001; favored melflufen). Overall, 245 of 495 (49%) patients randomized had received a previous ASCT, of which 202 (82%) had progressed within 36 months following their ASCT. When excluding patients who had progressed <36 months post-ASCT (melflufen group, n = 145; pomalidomide group, n = 148), median OS was 23.6 months with melflufen and 19.8 months with pomalidomide (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62-1.12]; P = .22). Among patients with triple-class refractory disease in HORIZON, patients who had progressed <36 months post-ASCT (n = 58) had a lower response rate and shorter duration of response and PFS than the remaining patients (n = 52). Safety was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate a consistent benefit for melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have not received an ASCT or progressed >36 months after receiving an ASCT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03151811).

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen plus dexamethasone: analyses from the Phase II HORIZON study.

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is known to have a high burden of disease and complications associated with refractoriness to prior lines of therapy. Severe pain and fatigue symptoms and impairments in physical and emotional functioning have been strongly linked to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM. Assessment of patient reported-outcome measures from the pivotal, Phase II HORIZON study (OP-106; NCT02963493) in patients with RRMM (n = 64) demonstrated that melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone treatment preserved HRQoL. Patients had clinically meaningful improvements, even after eight treatment cycles, in relevant scales such as global health status/QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, and fatigue. Patients with triple-class-refractory disease (n = 50) displayed similar improvements. Patient-reported outcome deterioration was delayed for a substantial amount of time in patients who experienced a response to melflufen plus dexamethasone treatment relative to patients who did not experience a response. These findings support the notion that treatment with melflufen plus dexamethasone may sustain or improve HRQoL over time in patients with RRMM, including in patients with triple-class-refractory disease for whom outcomes are generally worse. The clinical benefits observed in patients from the HORIZON trial are encouraging and supportive of translation into real-world practice.

Melflufen and Dexamethasone in Heavily Pretreated Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly and selectively releases alkylating agents into tumor cells. The phase II HORIZON trial evaluated the efficacy of melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), a population with an important unmet medical need. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with RRMM refractory to pomalidomide and/or an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody received melflufen 40 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 28-day cycle plus once weekly oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (20 mg in patients older than 75 years). The primary end point was overall response rate (partial response or better) assessed by the investigator and confirmed by independent review. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. The primary analysis is complete with long-term follow-up ongoing. RESULTS: Of 157 patients (median age 65 years; median five prior lines of therapy) enrolled and treated, 119 patients (76%) had triple-class-refractory disease, 55 (35%) had extramedullary disease, and 92 (59%) were refractory to previous alkylator therapy. The overall response rate was 29% in the all-treated population, with 26% in the triple-class-refractory population. In the all-treated population, median duration of response was 5.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.2 months, and median overall survival was 11.6 months at a median follow-up of 14 months. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 96% of patients, most commonly neutropenia (79%), thrombocytopenia (76%), and anemia (43%). Pneumonia (10%) was the most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic event. Thrombocytopenia and bleeding (both grade 3/4 but fully reversible) occurred concomitantly in four patients. GI events, reported in 97 patients (62%), were predominantly grade 1/2 (93%); none were grade 4. CONCLUSION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed clinically meaningful efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM, including those with triple-class-refractory and extramedullary disease.

Impact of Treatment Delay on Outcome in the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial.

Background and Purpose- ISAT (International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial) demonstrated that 1 year after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, coiling resulted in a significantly better clinical outcome than clipping. After 5 years, this difference did not reach statistical significance, but mortality was still higher in the clipping group. Here, we present additional analyses, reporting outcome after excluding pretreatment deaths. Methods- Outcome measures were death with or without dependency at 1 and 5 years after treatment, after exclusion of all pretreatment deaths. Treatment differences were assessed using relative risks (RRs). With sensitivity and exploratory analyses, the relation between treatment delay and outcome was analyzed. Results- After exclusion of pretreatment deaths, at 1-year follow-up coiling was favorable over clipping for death or dependency (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.89]) but not for death alone (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.19]). After 5 years, no significant differences were observed, neither for death or dependency (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77-1.02]) nor for death alone (RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64-1.05]). Sensitivity analyses showed a similar picture. In good-grade patients, coiling remained favorable over clipping in the long-term. Time between randomization and treatment was significantly longer in the clipping arm (mean 1.7 versus 1.1 days; P<0.0001), during which 17 patients died because of rebleeding versus 6 pretreatment deaths in the endovascular arm (RR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.11-7.11]). Conclusions- These additional analyses support the conclusion of ISAT that at 1-year follow-up after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage coiling has a better outcome than clipping. After 5 years, with pretreatment mortality excluded, the difference between coiling and clipping is not significant. The high number of pretreatment deaths in the clipping group highlights the importance of urgent aneurysm treatment to prevent early rebleeding.

ASTRIS: a global real-world study of osimertinib in >3000 patients with EGFR T790M positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We report real-world effectiveness and safety data. Patients & methods: EGFR T790M positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer adults, who received ≥1 prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, received osimertinib 80 mg daily. Primary effectiveness outcome: overall survival. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: investigator-assessed clinical response, progression-free survival, time-to-treatment discontinuation. Results: At data cutoff, 3015 patients had enrolled: 57.1% had investigator-assessed response (95% CI: 55.2-58.9). Median progression-free survival: 11.1 months (95% CI: 11.0-12.0) and median time-to-treatment discontinuation: 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6-13.9). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis-like events reported in 28 (1%) patients. Conclusion: Osimertinib demonstrated clinical effectiveness similar to efficacy observed in the clinical trial program with no new safety signals.

Prediction of Outcome After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Background and Purpose- Early prediction of clinical outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is still lacking accuracy. In this observational cohort study, we aimed to develop and validate an accurate bedside prediction model for clinical outcome after aSAH, to aid decision-making at an early stage. Methods- For the development of the prediction model, a prospectively kept single-center cohort of 1215 aSAH patients, admitted between 1998 and 2014, was used. For temporal validation, a prospective cohort of 224 consecutive aSAH patients from the same center, admitted between 2015 and 2017, was used. External validation was performed using the ISAT (International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial) database (2143 patients). Primary outcome measure was poor functional outcome 2 months after aSAH, defined as modified Rankin Scale score 4-6. The model was constructed using multivariate regression analyses. Performance of the model was examined in terms of discrimination and calibration. Results- The final model included 4 predictors independently associated with poor outcome after 2 months: age, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grade after resuscitation, aneurysm size, and Fisher grade. Temporal validation showed high discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), external validation showed fair to good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.76). The model showed satisfactory calibration in both validation cohorts. The SAFIRE grading scale was derived from the final model: size of the aneurysm, age, Fisher grade, world federation of neurosurgical societies after resuscitation. Conclusions- The SAFIRE grading scale is an accurate, generalizable, and easily applicable model for early prediction of clinical outcome after aSAH.

Buccal bone thickness at dental implants in the aesthetic zone: A 1-year follow-up cone beam computed tomography study.

Sufficient buccal bone thickness (BBT) is important for an optimal aesthetic outcome of implant treatment in the aesthetic zone. The aim of the study was to assess BBT at dental implants placed in the aesthetic zone (incisor, canine or first premolar in the maxilla) (immediate or delayed, with or without immediate provisionalization) with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) as a function of time. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups according to size of the buccal bony defect (<5 or ≥5 mm) after removal of the tooth, and timing of implant placement and provisionalization. CBCTs were made 1 month and 1 year after placement of the implant crown. BBT varied from 0.79 mm to 2.12 mm at 1 month and from 0.71 mm to 2.04 mm at 1 year. Change of BBT between 1 month and 1 year was negligible. This study concluded that BBT at dental implants in the aesthetic zone appears to be stable for immediate and delayed placed implants after placement of the definitive crown, independent of the size of buccal bone defect prior to implant insertion and timing of provisionalization.

Prediction of outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage: timing of clinical assessment.

OBJECTIVE Currently, early prediction of outcome after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) lacks accuracy despite multiple studies addressing this issue. The clinical condition of the patient on admission as assessed using the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) grading scale is currently considered the gold standard. However, the timing of the clinical assessment is subject to debate, as is the contribution of additional predictors. The aim of this study was to identify either the conventional WFNS grade on admission or the WFNS grade after neurological resuscitation (rWFNS) as the most accurate predictor of outcome after SAH. METHODS This prospective observational cohort study included 1620 consecutive patients with SAH admitted between January 1998 and December 2014 at our university neurovascular center. The primary outcome measure was a poor modified Rankin Scale score at the 2-month follow-up. Clinical predictors were identified using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis was used to test discriminative performance of the final model. An AUC of > 0.8 was regarded as indicative of a model with good prognostic value. RESULTS Poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale Score 4-6) was observed in 25% of the patients. The rWFNS grade was a significantly stronger predictor of outcome than the admission WFNS grade. The rWFNS grade was significantly associated with poor outcome (p < 0.001) as well as increasing age (p < 0.001), higher modified Fisher grade (p < 0.001), larger aneurysm size (p < 0.001), and the presence of an intracerebral hematoma (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.8; p = 0.002). The final model had an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.89), which indicates excellent prognostic value regarding the discrimination between poor and good outcome after SAH. CONCLUSIONS In clinical practice and future research, neurological assessment and grading of patients should be performed using the rWFNS to obtain the best representation of their clinical condition.

Immediate Single-Tooth Implant Placement in Bony Defects in the Esthetic Zone: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess, with regard to marginal bone level (MBL), whether the outcome of immediate implant placement in bony defects in the esthetic zone was non-inferior to delayed implant placement after 1 year. METHODS: Forty patients with a failing tooth in the esthetic zone and a labial bony defect of ≥5 mm after removal of a tooth were randomly assigned for immediate (n = 20) or delayed (n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and provisionalization occurred after 3 months of healing. Follow-up was at 1 month and 1 year after definitive crown placement. The study was powered to detect a difference in MBL of >0.9 mm. Buccal bone thickness, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, esthetic indices, and patient satisfaction were also assessed. RESULTS: One year after definitive crown placement, MBL loss was 0.56 ± 0.39 mm mesially and 0.74 ± 0.51 mm distally for the immediate placement group and 0.51 ± 0.43 mesially and 0.54 ± 0.45 distally mm for the delayed placement group, respectively (not significant). Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (difference in mean for immediate versus delayed: mesially 0.04 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.22 to 0.30 mm, P = 0.40]; distally 0.21 mm [95% CI = -0.10 to 0.51 mm, P = 0.58]). No significant differences in the other outcome variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement with delayed provisionalization was non-inferior to delayed implant placement with delayed provisionalization in labial bony defects of ≥5 mm regarding change in MBL. Although not powered for other outcome variables, no clinically relevant differences were observed in these variables.

Feasibility of immediate placement of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess whether outcome of immediate implant placement and immediate provisionalization after 1 year was non-inferior to immediate implant placement and delayed provisionalization regarding Marginal Bone Level (MBL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a failing tooth in the aesthetic zone were randomly assigned for immediate implant placement with immediate (n = 20) or delayed (n = 20) provisionalization. Follow-up was at 1 month and after 1 year. The study was powered to detect a difference in MBL of <0.9 mm. Apart from MBL, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, aesthetic indexes and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: After 1 year, MBL changes were -0.75 ± 0.69 mesially and -0.68 ± 0.65 distally mm for the immediate group and -0.70 ± 0.64 and -0.68 ± 0.64 mm for the delayed group respectively (NS). Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (mesially: Group A versus B: difference in mean 0.08 mm (95% CI -0.38 to 0.53, p = 0.71 distally: Group A versus B: difference in mean 0.09 mm (95% CI -0.37 to 0.56 mm, p = 0.66).No significant differences in the other outcome variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that immediate placement and immediate provisionalization was non-inferior to immediate placement with delayed provisionalization. In addition, although not powered for these outcome variables, no clinically relevant differences in other outcomes were observed (www.isrtcn.com: ISRCTN57251089).