DDInter: an online drug-drug interaction database towards improving clinical decision-making and patient safety.

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) can trigger many adverse effects in patients and has emerged as a threat to medicine and public health. Despite the continuous information accumulation of clinically significant DDIs, there are few open-access knowledge systems dedicated to the curation of DDI associations. To facilitate the clinicians to screen for dangerous drug combinations and improve health systems, we present DDInter, a curated DDI database with comprehensive data, practical medication guidance, intuitive function interface, and powerful visualization to the scientific community. Currently, DDInter contains about 0.24M DDI associations connecting 1833 approved drugs (1972 entities). Each drug is annotated with basic chemical and pharmacological information and its interaction network. For DDI associations, abundant and professional annotations are provided, including severity, mechanism description, strategies for managing potential side effects, alternative medications, etc. The drug entities and interaction entities are efficiently cross-linked. In addition to basic query and browsing, the prescription checking function is developed to facilitate clinicians to decide whether drugs combinations can be used safely. It can also be used for informatics-based DDI investigation and evaluation of other prediction frameworks. We hope that DDInter will prove useful in improving clinical decision-making and patient safety. DDInter is freely available, without registration, at http://ddinter.scbdd.com/.

Comparison of Side Effects and Tolerability Between Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, Reduced-Dose BCG and Gemcitabine for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported side effects and tolerability of full-dose Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), reduced-dose BCG, and gemcitabine one week after administration. METHODS: All patients from July 2019 to November 2020 receiving intravesical therapy (IVT) for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) at our institution were surveyed before repeat instillation. Survey questions recorded IVT retention times and the duration and severity of the following side effects: bladder symptoms, fatigue, body aches, hematuria, fever, chills, and other. All responses were collected and quantified in a de-identified, password-protected database. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS JMP 13. RESULTS: Of 592 surveys completed, symptoms of any kind were reported on 463 surveys (78%) with the most common symptoms including bladder symptoms (59%), fatigue (52%), body aches (26%), and hematuria (18%). Patients were able to hold full-dose BCG, reduced-dose BCG, and gemcitabine for the protocol-specified duration 87%, 95%, and 71% of the time (P <0.05). The prevalence, severity, and duration of body aches were highest with gemcitabine (P <0.05) while the prevalence and duration of hematuria were higher with BCG (P <0.05). Reduced-dose BCG had the lowest prevalence, severity, and duration of fatigue (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in the side effects and tolerability of full-dose BCG, reduced-dose BCG, and gemcitabine were demonstrated using this novel survey, and these differences are of value for informing IVT selection. Evaluation of IVTs other than gemcitabine and BCG will further inform selection of therapies for NMIBC.

Frequently Reported Adverse Events With Smoking Cessation Medications: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence, severity, and clinical course of frequently reported adverse events (AEs) after treatment with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. METHODS: This was a multinational, multicenter, post hoc analysis of frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs from a large, phase 4, double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled trial (EAGLES), conducted between November 30, 2011, and January 13, 2015, that included smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (N=8144). Treatments were varenicline 1 mg twice daily, bupropion sustained-release 150 mg twice daily, and nicotine patch 21 mg once daily with tapering (12-week treatment, 12-week nontreatment follow-up), with incidence, time to onset, and duration of frequently reported AEs (≥5% of participants in any treatment group) measured. Risk differences for AEs for varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch were compared. RESULTS: Across frequently reported AEs, nausea, insomnia, abnormal dreams, anxiety, irritability, dry mouth, fatigue, and application site pruritus differed significantly in active treatment vs placebo groups. Risk differences were as follows: for nausea with varenicline vs nicotine patch, 15.50% (95% CI, 13.20% to 17.80%); for insomnia with bupropion vs nicotine patch, 2.58% (CI, 0.65% to 4.51%); and for abnormal dreams with varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch, -2.49% (CI, -4.35% to -0.64%) and -5.60% (CI, -7.27% to -3.93%), respectively. Frequently reported AEs of severe intensity and treatment discontinuation were experienced by less than 1.5% and less than 3% of participants across all groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Active treatments were well tolerated with comparable AE profiles. Most AEs are not clinically important, and prescribers can reassure patients that those experienced will be manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Everolimus therapy and side­effects: A systematic review and meta­analysis.

Recent studies have focused on identifying novel targeted agents in order to reduce the undesired side­effects of conventional chemotherapeutic agents on normal cells. However, even targeted therapies may exert certain negative effects on healthy tissues. The present systematic review was performed in order to evaluate the type and the incidence of side­effects in patients treated with everolimus. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched using the following free words and MESH terms: 'everolimus' AND 'side­effects' OR 'toxicities' OR 'adverse events'. A total of 912 potentially relevant studies that were screened based on the title and abstracts were identified. A total of 731 were excluded as they did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the 181 remaining studies included, the adverse events reported were obtained. The primary adverse events reported were stomatitis, leukopenia, anorexia, anaemia and fatigue. The majority of the patients reported adverse events limited to grade 1 or 2. On the whole, the data presented herein confirm the findings of previous studies on the relative safety of everolimus, a targeted therapeutic agent, which differs from that of conventional chemotherapy, and highlight the potential adverse events associated with the therapeutic use of everolimus.

Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who do not respond to or who have progressive disease after salvage therapies have a poor prognosis. Loncastuximab tesirine is a CD19-directed antibody-drug conjugate with encouraging phase 1 single-agent antitumour activity and acceptable safety in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We aimed to evaluate the antitumour activity and safety of loncastuximab tesirine in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. METHODS: We did a multicentre (28 hospital sites in the USA, UK, Italy, and Switzerland), open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial (LOTIS-2) in patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more multiagent systemic treatments, who had measurable disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Eligible patients received loncastuximab tesirine intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, at 150 µg/kg for two cycles, then 75 µg/kg thereafter, for up to 1 year or until disease relapse or progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, major protocol deviation, pregnancy, or patient, investigator, or sponsor decision. The primary endpoint was overall response rate assessed by central review. Primary antitumour activity and safety analyses were done in the as-treated population (patients who received at least one dose of loncastuximab tesirine), when all responding patients had at least 6 months of follow-up after initial documented response. Enrolment is complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03589469. FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2018, and Sept 24, 2019, 184 patients were assessed for eligibility and 145 (79%) were enrolled and received at least one dose of loncastuximab tesirine, including patients with high-risk characteristics for poor prognosis, such as double-hit, triple-hit, transformed, or primary refractory DLBCL. 70 of 145 patients had complete or partial response (overall response rate 48·3% [95% CI 39·9-56·7]); 35 had complete response and 35 had partial response. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (37 [26%] of 145 patients), thrombocytopenia (26 [18%]), and increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (24 [17%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 57 (39%) of 145 patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (6%) of 145 patients; none were considered related to loncastuximab tesirine. INTERPRETATION: Loncastuximab tesirine has substantial single-agent antitumour activity and produces durable responses with an acceptable safety profile, potentially offering a new therapeutic option for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. FUNDING: ADC Therapeutics.

Adverse Events Associated with Intranasal Sprays: An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Database and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal sprays (INSs) are commonly used medications for the treatment of many rhinologic conditions. Despite their popularity, an analysis of a nationwide reporting database and comparison to the available literature has never been performed. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was accessed to obtain adverse event (AE) records from 2014 to 2019 for varying INSs, including: 10 corticosteroids, 1 alpha adrenergic, and 3 antihistamines. The Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR) and Reporting Odds Ratios (ROR) were calculated for dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache. A PRR ≥ 2 or ROR ≥ 1 was considered significant. RESULTS: Corticosteroids had 98 864 total reported AEs to the database, followed by antihistamines (7011) and alpha adrenergics (2071). In total, dyspnea was reported 5843 times, followed by headache (4230), epistaxis (1205), ageusia/dysgeusia (920), and anosmia (312). Overall, PRR and ROR values for dyspnea ranged from 0.51 to 4.25 and 0.51 to 4.49; for dysgeusia/ageusia from 0.56 to 6.09 and 0.56 to 6.12; and for epistaxis from 1.03 to 27.24 and 1.03 to 30.76, respectively. All medications which listed anosmia within the top AEs had PRR and ROR values exceeding 2 and 1, respectively. The PRR for headache exceeded 2 for 1 medication and the ROR exceeded 1 in 7 medications. CONCLUSION: The AEs of dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache are reported within the FAERS database for commonly prescribed INSs. When compared against the existing scientific literature, the clinical significance of this reporting tool from the FDA for these classes of medications remains unvalidated.

Population pharmacokinetic model development and its relationship with adverse events of oxcarbazepine in adult patients with epilepsy.

This study aimed to develop a pharmacokinetic (PK) model of oxcarbazepine (OXC) and analyse the relationship between monohydroxylated derivative (MHD), an active metabolite of OXC, and the adverse events of OXC. We obtained 711 OXC samples from 618 patients with epilepsy who were enrolled in the Epilepsy Registry Cohort of Seoul National University Hospital from February 2011 to January 2014. The plasma PK model was developed using a nonlinear mixed-effect modelling method with NONMEM (ver 7.3). A one-compartment model with a first-order absorption model and proportional residual error adequately described the MHD concentration-time profiles. The only covariate incorporated for CL/F and V/F was body weight. Of the 447 patients analysed, 28 (6.26%) had dose-related adverse events (DRAEs), which were dizziness, somnolence, headache, and diplopia. For DRAE occurrence, the cut-off values of the MHD trough and AUC were 12.27 mg/L (specificity 0.570, sensitivity 0.643) and 698.5 mg h/L (specificity, sensitivity 0.571), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed the sole dizziness symptom was significantly associated with both the MHD trough and the AUC (p = 0.013, p = 0.038, respectively). We newly developed a population PK model using sparse sampling data from patients with epilepsy, and the model better reflects the actual clinical situation.

Phase Ib trial of reformulated niclosamide with abiraterone/prednisone in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Niclosamide has preclinical activity against a wide range of cancers. In prostate cancer, it inhibits androgen receptor variant 7 and synergizes with abiraterone. The approved niclosamide formulation has poor oral bioavailability. The primary objective of this phase Ib trial was to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of a novel reformulated orally-bioavailable niclosamide/PDMX1001 in combination with abiraterone and prednisone in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Eligible patients had progressing CRPC, adequate end-organ function, and no prior treatment with abiraterone or ketoconazole. Patients were treated with escalating doses of niclosamide/PDMX1001 and standard doses of abiraterone and prednisone. Peak and trough niclosamide plasma levels were measured. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 and Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria were used to evaluate toxicities and responses. Nine patients with metastatic CRPC were accrued, with no dose-limiting toxicities observed at all dose levels. The recommended Phase II dose of niclosamide/PDMX1001 was 1200 mg orally (PO) three times daily plus abiraterone 1000 mg PO once daily and prednisone 5 mg PO twice daily. Trough and peak niclosamide concentrations exceeded the therapeutic threshold of > 0.2 µM. The combination was well tolerated with most frequent adverse effects of diarrhea. Five out of eight evaluable patients achieved a PSA response; two achieved undetectable PSA and radiographic response. A novel niclosamide/PDMX1001 reformulation achieved targeted plasma levels when combined with abiraterone and prednisone, and was well tolerated. Further study of niclosamide/PDMX1001 with this combination is warranted.

Real-World Experience of Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil in 119 Japanese Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

OBJECTIVES: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is the standard treatment for lupus nephritis. In Japan, it was approved for lupus nephritis in 2015. We investigated its real-world safety and effectiveness in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We analyzed the continuation rate, adverse events, and reasons for discontinuation of MMF in Japanese patients with SLE in a retrospective single-center study. We included 119 patients who received MMF from 31 July 2015 to 31 May 2019. To compare demographic and clinical characteristics between groups, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for nonnormally distributed variables. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for the discontinuation rate of MMF. RESULTS: Patients consisted of 18 males and 101 females. Thirty-five patients discontinued MMF. The cumulative discontinuation rate was 42.4%. Twenty-nine patients discontinued MMF due to adverse events, and six patients discontinued MMF due to remission of SLE or desire for childbearing. At the time of the last observation, the lupus low disease activity state achievement rate was significantly lower in patients who experienced adverse events than those who did not (64% vs. 35%, P = 0.009). We examined the concentration of mycophenolate acid (trough level) in stored frozen serum in 11 patients. Two patients had irreversible complications due to viral meningitis; their trough mycophenolate acid concentrations were 8.3 and 6.3 µg/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although MMF may be effective in Japanese patients with SLE, physicians should pay attention to infections in patients with high mycophenolate acid concentrations.

Enhancing Pediatric Adverse Drug Reaction Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) often go unreported or are inaccurately documented in the electronic medical recorded (EMR), even when they are severe and life-threatening. Incomplete reporting can lead to future prescribing challenges and ADR reoccurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the documentation of ADRs within the EMR and determine specific factors associated with appropriate and timely ADR documentation. Retrospective data were collected from a pediatric hospital system ADR reports from October 2010 to November 2018. Data included implicated medication, type, and severity of reaction, treatment location, the presence or absence of ADR documentation in the EMR alert profile within 24 hours of the ADR hospital or clinic encounter discharge, ADR identification method, and the presence or absence of pharmacovigilance oversight at the facility where the ADR was treated. A linear regression model was applied to identify factors contributing to optimal ADR documentation. A total of 3065 ADRs requiring medical care were identified. Of these, 961 ADRs (31%) did not have appropriate documentation added to the EMR alert profile prior to discharge. ADRs were documented in the EMR 87% of the time with the presence of pharmacovigilance oversight and only 61% without prospective pharmacovigilance (P < .01). Severity of ADR was not a predictor of ADR documentation in the EMR, yet the implicated medication and location of treatment did impact reporting. An active pharmacovigilance service significantly improved pediatric ADR documentation. Further work is needed to assure timely, accurate ADR documentation.

Real-world efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab, a humanized immunoglobulin monoclonal antibody directed against the programmed cell death 1 receptor, demonstrated robust efficacy and a manageable safety profile across multiple tumor types in clinical trials. AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) in clinical practice. METHODS: In this observational monocentric retrospective study, 38 patients with PD-L1 >50% were enrolled between November 2017 and November 2018. RESULTS: The global median overall survival was 11.08 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.98-not reached) and the global median progression-free survival was 6 months (95% CI, 3-not reached). In the univariate analysis, clinical performance status score and the development of immune-related adverse events were the only 2 clinical factors significantly correlated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that pembrolizumab seems less effective in the real-life population than in the pivotal clinical trials in patients with NSCLC but remains an effective treatment option for patients with NSCLC. Longer follow-up is needed.

Adverse Drug Reactions Spontaneously Reported at a Tertiary Care Hospital and Preventable Measures Implemented.

WHAT IS KNOWN: Limitations of clinical trials in determining all safety concerns related to a drug are well recognized. Monitoring spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports remains an easy and relatively inexpensive method for overseeing that a drug remains a safe and effective option for patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and describe ADR reports at one of the largest healthcare institutions in the region and share the measures implemented by the team. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all ADRs submitted by healthcare providers in a tertiary healthcare system in Saudi Arabia between January 2016 and December 2019. The main outcome measures included reporting rate, patient characteristics, suspected drugs involved, seriousness and reporting specialities. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Throughout this study, 1156 ADR reports were submitted. The top reported ADR was immune system disorders (87.8%). The most represented class were antimicrobials (56.8%), followed by analgesics (11.4%) and diagnostic agents (5.1%). The ADRs were deemed definitely avoidable in 11.4% (132/1156) of the cases, and 24.2% (280/1156) were deemed possibly avoidable. Reporting ADRs has steadily increased over the years at our institution, but there continues to be a lack of reporting by physicians. Almost one-third of the reported ADRs were considered to be avoidable or possibly avoidable, which is a driver to continue pharmacovigilance activates on an institutional level and provide specific and tailored preventative measures guided by the specific types of ADRs reported. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report trends of ADRs spontaneously reported at one of the largest healthcare institutions in the Middle East. It shows similar trends to what has been reported by other institutions, with mainly immediate immunological ADRs being the top reported ADRs, which could be explained by the immediate onset which simplifies the temporal association. Every institution should support and maintain an active ADR team, with responsibilities of evaluating incidents, monitoring trends and most importantly identifying opportunities to improve medication and patient safety. We share here our workflow and hope it serves as a guide for other institutions.

Efficacy and Safety of Axitinib Therapy After Nivolumab for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are treatment options for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). However, the treatment options after nivolumab are unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of 57 consecutive Japanese mRCC patients who underwent treatment with axitinib were reviewed. Among those, 17 patients received axitinib treatment after nivolumab and 40 patients received axitinib treatment after other chemotherapy regimens except nivolumab. RESULTS: Of the 57 patients with mRCC, only 17 underwent axitinib therapy after nivolumab. Among these 17 patients, the objective response rate (ORR) and median tumor shrinkage rate were 56.3% and -30%, respectively. They were significantly better in patients who underwent axitinib therapy after nivolumab than after other therapies (p=0.026 and p=0.012, respectively). However, all 17 patients experienced some adverse events and nine patients (52.9%) required a dose reduction or axitinib treatment interruption. CONCLUSION: Axitinib therapy after the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab showed good efficacy with a moderate risk of adverse events. Careful management by skilled professionals may be required.

Intermittent schedules of the oral RAF-MEK inhibitor CH5126766/VS-6766 in patients with RAS/RAF-mutant solid tumours and multiple myeloma: a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: CH5126766 (also known as VS-6766, and previously named RO5126766), a novel MEK-pan-RAF inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity across various solid tumours; however, its initial development was limited by toxicity. We aimed to investigate the safety and toxicity profile of intermittent dosing schedules of CH5126766, and the antitumour activity of this drug in patients with solid tumours and multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. METHODS: We did a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust (London, UK). Patients were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 years or older, had cancers that were refractory to conventional treatment or for which no conventional therapy existed, and if they had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1. For the dose-escalation phase, eligible patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic solid tumours. For the basket dose-expansion phase, eligible patients had advanced or metastatic solid tumours or multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. During the dose-escalation phase, we evaluated three intermittent oral schedules (28-day cycles) in patients with solid tumours: (1) 4·0 mg or 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week; (2) 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week; and (3) toxicity-guided dose interruption schedule, in which treatment at the recommended phase 2 dose (4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week) was de-escalated to 3 weeks on followed by 1 week off if patients had prespecified toxic effects (grade 2 or worse diarrhoea, rash, or creatinine phosphokinase elevation). In the basket dose-expansion phase, we evaluated antitumour activity at the recommended phase 2 dose, determined from the dose-escalation phase, in biomarker-selected patients. The primary endpoints were the recommended phase 2 dose at which no more than one out of six patients had a treatment-related dose-limiting toxicity, and the safety and toxicity profile of each dosing schedule. The key secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate in the dose-expansion phase. Patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were evaluable for safety and patients who received one cycle of the study drug and underwent baseline disease assessment were evaluable for response. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02407509. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and Jan 10, 2019, 58 eligible patients were enrolled to the study: 29 patients with solid tumours were included in the dose-escalation cohort and 29 patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma were included in the basket dose-expansion cohort (12 non-small-cell lung cancer, five gynaecological malignancy, four colorectal cancer, one melanoma, and seven multiple myeloma). Median follow-up at the time of data cutoff was 2·3 months (IQR 1·6-3·5). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 bilateral retinal pigment epithelial detachment in one patient who received 4·0 mg CH5126766 three times per week, and grade 3 rash (in two patients) and grade 3 creatinine phosphokinase elevation (in one patient) in those who received 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week. 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week (on Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday) was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were rash (11 [19%] patients), creatinine phosphokinase elevation (six [11%]), hypoalbuminaemia (six [11%]), and fatigue (four [7%]). Five (9%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Eight (14%) of 57 patients died during the trial due to disease progression. Seven (27% [95% CI 11·6-47·8]) of 26 response-evaluable patients in the basket expansion achieved objective responses. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that highly intermittent schedules of a RAF-MEK inhibitor has antitumour activity across various cancers with RAF-RAS-MEK pathway mutations, and that this inhibitor is tolerable. CH5126766 used as a monotherapy and in combination regimens warrants further evaluation. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. METHODS: We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

Classical Examples of the Concept of the ASIA Syndrome.

Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) was first introduced in 2011 by Shoenfeld et al. and encompasses a cluster of related immune mediated diseases, which develop among genetically prone individuals as a result of adjuvant agent exposure. Since the recognition of ASIA syndrome, more than 4400 documented cases have been reported so far, illustrated by heterogeneous clinical manifestations and severity. In this review, five enigmatic conditions, including sarcoidosis, Sjögren's syndrome, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, silicone implant incompatibility syndrome (SIIS), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs), are defined as classical examples of ASIA. Certainly, these disorders have been described after an adjuvant stimulus (silicone implantation, drugs, infections, metals, vaccines, etc.) among genetically predisposed individuals (mainly the HLA-DRB1 and PTPN22 gene), which induce an hyperstimulation of the immune system resulting in the production of autoantibodies, eventually leading to the development of autoimmune diseases. Circulating autonomic autoantibodies in the sera of patients with silicone breast implants, as well as anatomopathological aspects of small fiber neuropathy in their skin biopsies have been recently described. To our knowledge, these novel insights serve as a common explanation to the non-specific clinical manifestations reported in patients with ASIA, leading to the redefinition of the ASIA syndrome diagnostic criteria.

Landscape of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events in Chinese population.

This study aimed to describe the landscape of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-related adverse events (AEs) in a predominantly Chinese cohort. We searched electronic datasets including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase to identify and recruit relevant trials up to September 2, 2019. Clinical trials focusing on ICIs in Chinese patients or a predominantly Chinese population were included. Incidences of treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) and immune-related AEs (irAEs) were pooled and compared. In total, we recruited 13 trials consisting of 1063 patients, with 922 (86.7%) receiving ICI monotherapy and 141 (13.3%) receiving combination of ICI with chemotherapy or anti-angiogenesis. The pooled incidence of any grade TRAEs, grade 1-2, grade 3-5 TRAEs, any grade irAEs, grade 1-2 irAEs and grade 3-5 irAEs in all 1063 patients were 84.1%, 63.3%, 20.9%, 43.3%, 40.0% and 3.0%, respectively. Moreover, 4.3% (44/1018) of patients experienced treatment discontinuation and only 8 (0.8%) patients experienced treatment-related death. Compared to ICI monotherapy, combination significantly increased grade 3-5 TRAEs (46.1% vs. 17.0%, P < 0.001) and grade 3-5 irAEs (7.1% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.015). By comparing the toxicity profiles between different ICIs, we found some drug-specific AEs such as reactive capillary haemangiomas for camrelizumab (58.6%), hyperglycemia for toripalimab (55.6%) and pyrexia for tislelizumab (54.3%). Additionally, nivolumab has the lowest incidence of any grade (64.1%) and grade 3-5 (11.8%) TRAEs. ICI-related AEs were generally mild and tolerable for a predominantly Chinese cohort. However, we should pay attention to the combination of ICI with chemotherapy as it could increase grade 3-5 TRAEs and irAEs.

Surufatinib in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (SANET-p): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Surufatinib showed superior efficacy in extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) in the phase 3 SANET-ep study. In SANET-p, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of surufatinib in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. METHODS: SANET-p was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, done in 21 hospitals across China. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18 years or older) with progressive, advanced, well differentiated pancreatic NETs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on up to two kinds of previous systemic regimens for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to receive 300 mg of surufatinib or placebo, taken orally once per day in consecutive 4-week treatment cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, poor compliance, use of other antitumour medication, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, or if the investigator deemed discontinuation in the patient's best interest. Randomisation was done centrally using stratified block randomisation (block size three), stratified by pathological grade, previous systemic antitumour treatment, and ECOG performance status score. Patients, investigators, research staff, and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to surufatinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients in randomisation. A pre-planned interim analysis was done at 70% of the predicted progression-free survival events. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589821. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, of 264 patients who were screened, 172 (65%) patients were randomly assigned to receive surufatinib (n=113) or placebo (n=59). The median follow-up was 19·3 months (95% CI 9·3-19·4) in the surufatinib group and 11·1 months (5·7-35·9) in the placebo group. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 10·9 months (7·5-13·8) for surufatinib versus 3·7 months (2·8-5·6) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·49, 95% CI 0·32-0·76; p=0·0011). The trial met the early stopping criteria at the interim analysis and was terminated on recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (43 [38%] of 113 with surufatinib vs four [7%] of 59 with placebo), proteinuria (11 [10%] vs one [2%]), and hypertriglyceridaemia (eight [7%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 25 (22%) patients in the surufatinib group and four (7%) patients in the placebo group. There were three on-treatment deaths in the surufatinib group, including two deaths due to adverse events (gastrointestinal haemorrhage [possibly treatment-related] and cerebral haemorrhage [unlikely to be treatment-related]), and one death attributed to disease progression. One on-treatment death in the placebo group was attributed to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: Surufatinib significantly improves progression-free survival and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with progressive, advanced pancreatic NETs, and could be a potential treatment option in this patient population. FUNDING: Hutchison MediPharma.

Surufatinib in advanced extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (SANET-ep): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for advanced neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of surufatinib (HMPL-012, sulfatinib) in patients with extrapancreatic NETs. METHODS: SANET-ep was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 24 hospitals across China. Patients (aged 18 years or older) with unresectable or metastatic, well differentiated, extrapancreatic NETs, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and progression on no more than two types of previous systemic regimens were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) using stratified block randomisation (block size 3) via an interactive web response system to receive oral surufatinib at 300 mg per day or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by tumour origin, pathological grade, and previous treatment. Patients, investigators, research staff and the sponsor study team were masked to treatment allocation. Crossover to the surufatinib group was allowed for patients in the placebo group at disease progression. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. A preplanned interim analysis was done at 70% of predicted progression-free survival events. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02588170. Follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2015, and March 31, 2019, 198 patients were randomly assigned to surufatinib (n=129) or placebo (n=69). Median follow-up was 13·8 months (95% CI 11·1-16·7) in the surufatinib group and 16·6 months (9·2-not calculable) in the placebo group. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·2 months (95% CI 7·4-11·1) in the surufatinib group versus 3·8 months (3·7-5·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·33; 95% CI 0·22-0·50; p<0·0001). As the trial met the predefined criteria for early discontinuation of the study at the interim analysis, the study was terminated early, as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were hypertension (47 [36%] of 129 patients in the surufatinib group vs nine [13%] of 68 patients in the placebo group) and proteinuria (25 [19%] vs zero). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 32 (25%) of 129 patients in the surufatinib group and nine (13%) of 68 patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in three patients in the surufatinib group (disseminated intravascular coagulation and hepatic encephalopathy, liver injury, and death with unknown reason) and one patient in the placebo group (cachexia and respiratory failure). INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients given surufatinib compared with patients given placebo, and surufatinib has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with progressive, advanced, well differentiated extrapancreatic NETs. Our results suggest that surufatinib might be a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Hutchison MediPharma.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. FINDINGS: Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6-52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2-52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8-56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4-45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7-81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2-80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66-1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.