Effectiveness and safety of filgotinib in rheumatoid arthritis: a real-life multicentre experience.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effectiveness and safety of filgotinib in a real-life multicentre cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: RA patients were evaluated at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks and were stratified based on previous treatments as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naive and bDMARD-insufficient responders (IR). Concomitant usage of methotrexate (MTX) and oral glucocorticoids (GC) was recorded. At each timepoint we recorded disease activity, laboratory parameters and adverse events. RESULTS: 126 patients were enrolled. 15.8% were bDMARD-naive (G0), while 84% were bDMARD-IR (G1). In G0, 45% of patients were in monotherapy (G2) and 55% were taken MTX (G3). In G1, 50% of patients were in monotherapy (G4) and 50% used MTX (G5).A significant reduction in all parameters at 12 weeks was observed; in the extension to 24 weeks the significant reduction was maintained for patient global assessment (PGA), examiner global assessment (EGA), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, VAS fatigue, disease activity score (DAS)28- C-reactive protein (CRP) and CRP values. Filgotinib in monotherapy showed better outcomes in bDMARD-naive patients, with significant differences for patient reported outcomes (PROs) and DAS28-CRP. At 12 weeks, low disease activity (LDA) and remission were achieved in a percentage of 37.2 % and 10.7 % by simplified disease activity index (SDAI), 42.6 % and 5.7 % by clinical disease activity index (CDAI), 26.8 % and 25.2 % by DAS28-CRP, respectively. A significant decrease in steroid dose was evidenced in all patients. We observed a major adverse cardiovascular event in one patient and an increase in transaminase in another. No infections from Herpes Zoster were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world data confirm the effectiveness and safety of filgotinib in the management of RA, especially in bDMARD-naive patients.

Predictors of DAPSA Response in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients Treated with Apremilast in a Retrospective Observational Multi-Centric Study.

BACKGROUND: To date, only a few real-world-setting studies evaluated apremilast effectiveness in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The aims of this retrospective observational study are to report long-term Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) response of apremilast in PsA patients and to analyze the predictors of clinical response. METHODS: All PsA consecutive patients treated with apremilast in fifteen Italian rheumatological referral centers were enrolled. Anamnestic data, treatment history, and PsA disease activity (DAPSA) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months were recorded. The Mann-Whitney test and chi-squared tests assessed the differences between independent groups, whereas the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test assessed the differences between dependent samples. Logistic regressions verified if there were factors associated with achievement of DAPSA low disease activity or remission at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: DAPSA low disease activity or remission rates at 6 and 12 months were observed, respectively, in 42.7% (n = 125) and 54.9% (n = 161) patients. Baseline DAPSA was inversely associated with the odds of achieving low disease activity or remission at 6 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.841, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.804-0.879; p < 0.01) and at 12 months (OR 0.911, 95% CI 0.883-0.939; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the PsA patients receiving apremilast achieved DAPSA low disease activity or remission at 6 and 12 months. The only factor associated with achievement of low disease activity or remission at both 6 and 12 months was baseline DAPSA.

Therapeutic Effects of Apremilast on Enthesitis and Dactylitis in Real Clinical Setting: An Italian Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Enthesitis and dactylitis are difficult-to-treat features of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), leading to disability and affecting quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate enthesitis (using the Leed enthesitis index (LEI)) and dactylitis at 6 and 12 months in patients treated with apremilast. METHODS: Patients affected by PsA from fifteen Italian rheumatological referral centers were screened. The inclusion criteria were: (a) enthesitis or dactylitisphenotype; (b) treatment with apremilast 30 mg bid. Clinical and treatment history, including PsA disease activity, were recorded. Mann-Whitney and chi-squared tests were used to assess the differences between independent groups, and Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test assessed the differences between dependent samples. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The Eph cohort consisted of 118 patients (median LEI 3); the Dph cohort included 96 patients with a median dactylitis of 1 (IQR 1-2). According to an intention to treat analysis, 25% and 34% of patients with enthesitis achieved remission (i.e., LEI = 0) in T1 and T2. The remission of dactylitis was 47% in T1 and 44% in T2. The per protocol analysis (patients observed for at least 12 months) showed that both dactylitis and LEI significantly improved in T1 (median LEI 1 (IQR 1-3)) and T2 (median LEI 0 (IQR 1-2)). CONCLUSION: Eph and Dph PsA patients treated with apremilast experienced a significant improvement in enthesitis and dactylitis activity. After 1 year, enthesitis and dactylitis remission was achieved in more than one-third of patients.

Apremilast retention rate in clinical practice: observations from an Italian multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: There are few real-world setting studies focused on apremilast effectiveness (i.e., retention rate) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The main aim of this retrospective observational study is the assessment of apremilast 3-year retention rate in real-world PsA patients. Moreover, the secondary objective is to report the reasons of apremilast discontinuation and the factors related to treatment persistence. METHODS: In fifteen Italian rheumatological referral centers, all PsA consecutive patients who received apremilast were enrolled. Anamnestic data, treatment history, and PsA disease activity (DAPSA) at baseline were recorded. The Kaplan-Meier curve and the Cox analysis computed the apremilast retention rate and treatment persistence-related risk factors. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The 356 enrolled patients (median age 60 [interquartile range IQR 52-67] yrs; male prevalence 42.7%) median observation period was 17 [IQR 7-34] months (7218 patients-months). The apremilast retention rate at 12, 24, and 36 months was, respectively, 85.6%, 73.6%, and 61.8%. The main discontinuation reasons were secondary inefficacy (34% of interruptions), gastro-intestinal intolerance (24%), and primary inefficacy (19%). Age and oligo-articular phenotype were related to treatment persistence (respectively hazard ratio 0.98 IQR 0.96-0.99; p = 0.048 and 0.54 IQR 0.31-0.95; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Almost three-fifths of PsA patients receiving apremilast were still in treatment after 3 years. This study confirmed its effectiveness and safety profile. Apremilast appears as a good treatment choice in all oligo-articular PsA patients and in those ones burdened by relevant comorbidities. Key Points • Apremilast retention rates in this real-life cohort and trials are comparable. • The oligo-articular phenotype is associated with long-lasting treatment (i.e., 3 years). • No different or more prevalent adverse events were observed.

Patient associations and clinical oncology research: how much does a patient's voice really matter?

Background: New trends are emerging in clinical research, such as patient empowerment and an active role in influencing health and research ethics. Patients' involvement is considered pivotal by stakeholders and institutions because they can channel the voice of those they represent, empowering their starring role in the different research activities.Objectives: To obtain an overview of the real involvement of Italian patient associations in clinical research.Methods: In January 2019, the Working Group 'Clinical Research Coordinators' of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology spread an online questionnaire consisting of 16 questions on the active involvement of patient associations in clinical research.Results: The involvement in clinical research working groups, in the organization and implementation of specific activities and training initiatives is very limited (21.7% in both cases), as well as the active involvement in the conduct and/or definition of clinical trials (0.3%). Moreover, few associations (15.2%) have joined projects on patient involvement in clinical research in collaboration with other associations.Discussion: Although the current involvement of the associations may have been somewhat underestimated, there is no doubt that much more can be done in terms of training and identification of common objectives between patients and professionals.

Phase I studies: a test bench for Italian clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Determination 809/2015 sets all the requirements that clinical units and laboratories must meet in order to conduct phase I studies. Requirements include buildings, equipment, personnel, emergency management, as well as quality requirements defined in a set of standard operating procedures. METHODS: In September 2018, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology working group, Clinical Research Coordinator, created an anonymous survey addressed to 51 medical directors of oncologic/hematologic clinical phase I units and all medical directors of generic and transversal units located in Italy and listed at the AIFA website. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 24 institutions were collected, 9 previously inspected by competent authorities. All surveyed structures are certified to conduct profit studies and 1 is authorized to include healthy volunteers; 15 units implemented a Clinical Trial Quality Team in order to conduct nonprofit studies. At the time of data collection, a total of 398 proposals for phase I trials have been received, more than 50% coming from 3 institutes. A total of 144 phase I studies were active, with a median of 2.5 (Q1-Q3=0-6) studies for each center and asymmetric distribution of proposals. CONCLUSION: The considerable number of proposals received from the interviewed centers indicates that Italy plays an important role in the international pharmaceutical scene, despite bureaucratic procedures that threaten exclusion from decision-making. The AIFA Determination will be an important opportunity to acquire a competitive working approach.

Eribulin mesylate use as third-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (VESPRY): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In real-world practice, eribulin mesylate provides significant survival benefit, with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational study we evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of eribulin as third-line treatment in a homogeneous population. The primary endpoints were the safety profile and response in metastatic sites; secondary endpoints included the response in different subtypes, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From 2013 to 2016, 118 women were treated in 21 Sicilian institutions; the median age was 58 years (range 29-79), with 69% of patients under 65. The median cycles of eribulin were 5.5 (range 1-26). The most common adverse event was neutropenia (9.3%, 3 cases of grade 3, 4 of grade 4); only 1 case of QT prolongation was reported. Eribulin was effective in controlling metastatic disease in all sites, and it achieved the highest ORR in brain (16%) and liver (14.9%). Median OS was 31.8 months (95% CI 27.9-34.4) and median PFS 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.6). PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 2.8-8.4) in patients with triple-negative subtype. Median PFS was longer in patients over 65 years (6.1 months, 95% CI 4.4-8.3). In patients who had visceral metastases PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 95% 3.5-6.6) and OS 33.9 months (95% CI 29.8-40.8). CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin as third-line treatment shows an acceptable safety profile and a substantial antitumour activity in the treatment of MBC, even in elderly patients and in those with visceral disease.