Current and anticipated future state of cachexia care in patients with cancer.

Aims: We assessed care in cancer patients with cachexia across leading health systems (LHSs). Patients & methods: Qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys were conducted with LHSs executives and frontline health care personnel, representing 46 total respondents and 42 unique LHSs and including oncology service line leaders, supportive care services, dietitians and surgical oncologists. Results: Cachexia was not considered a top priority, and formal diagnoses were rare. Participants highlighted the importance of addressing barriers to increase clinical trial enrollment and support frontline health care personnel and patients in early detection of cachexia. Conclusion: Cachexia prioritization needs to be elevated across LHSs executives to obtain capital and strategic imperatives to advance related care.

[Box: see text].

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time. METHODS: We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019. RESULTS: Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%). CONCLUSION: Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed.

Addressing resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: an urgent unmet need.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of various cancers by reversing the immunosuppressive mechanisms employed by tumors to restore anticancer immunity. Although ICIs have demonstrated substantial clinical efficacy, patient response can vary in depth and duration, and many do not respond at all or eventually develop resistance. ICI resistance mechanisms can be tumor-intrinsic, related to the tumor microenvironment or patient-specific factors. Multiple resistance mechanisms may be present within one tumor subtype, or heterogeneity exists among patients with the same tumor type. Consequently, designing effective combination treatment strategies is challenging. This review will discuss ICI resistance mechanisms, and summarize findings from key preclinical and clinical trials of ICIs, to identify potential treatment strategies or pathways to overcome ICI resistance.

Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials.

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African-Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups.

Lay abstract A plain language version of this article is available and is published alongside the paper online: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2020-1262.

Phase 1b study of a small molecule antagonist of human chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (PF-04136309) in combination with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2)/chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (CCR2) axis plays a key role in immunosuppressive properties of the tumor microenvironment, patient prognosis, and chemoresistance. This phase Ib study assessed the effects of the orally administered CCR2 inhibitor PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. Methods Patients received PF-04136309 twice daily (BID) continuously plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability, characterize dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of PF-04136309. Results In all, 21 patients received PF-04136309 at a starting dose of 500 mg or 750 mg BID. The RP2D was identified to be 500 mg BID. Of 17 patients treated at the 500 mg BID starting dose, three (17.6%) experienced a total of four DLTs, including grade 3 dysesthesia, diarrhea, and hypokalemia and one event of grade 4 hypoxia. Relative to the small number of patients (n = 21), a high incidence (24%) of pulmonary toxicity was observed in this study. The objective response rate for 21 patients was 23.8% (95% confidence interval: 8.2-47.2%). Levels of CD14 + CCR2+ inflammatory monocytes (IM) decreased in the peripheral blood, but did not accumulate in the bone marrow. Conclusions PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine had a safety profile that raises concern for synergistic pulmonary toxicity and did not show an efficacy signal above nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02732938.

Humanistic and economic impact of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of oncology biologics.

More oncology biologics are becoming available for subcutaneous (sc.) administration and are expected to provide useful therapeutic options. We evaluated evidence published in the past 5 years to assess the humanistic and economic impact of sc. versus intravenous administration of approved cancer therapies and identify outcomes favoring either administration route. These publications focused predominantly on healthcare resource utilization and economic outcomes, demonstrating resource and cost savings with sc. administration. Patients reported a better health-related quality of life and preference for sc. formulations. Time-and-motion study analyses confirmed the convenience of sc. administration. These findings suggest that future availability of sc. oncology biologics, especially anti-PD-1/PD-ligand 1 antibodies due to their increased utility in various malignancies, may be beneficial for patients, healthcare providers and payers.

Neoadjuvant PF-05280014 (a potential trastuzumab biosimilar) versus trastuzumab for operable HER2+ breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, double-blind study compared pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-05280014 (potential trastuzumab biosimilar) and trastuzumab reference product (Herceptin) sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU) as neoadjuvant treatment for operable human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Patients (N = 226), stratified by primary tumour size and hormone receptor status, were randomised 1:1 to PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU (8 mg/kg loading dose; 6 mg/kg thereafter), each with docetaxel and carboplatin, every 3 weeks for six treatment cycles. Primary endpoint was percentage of patients with trough plasma concentration (Ctrough) >20 µg/ml at Cycle 5 (Cycle 6 predose). Efficacy endpoints included pathological complete response and objective response rate. Non-inferiority of PF-05280014 to trastuzumab-EU was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the stratified difference between groups in the percentage of patients with Cycle 5 Ctrough >20 µg/ml was above the prespecified non-inferiority margin of - 12.5%. RESULTS: For PF-05280014 vs trastuzumab-EU patients, respectively, 92.1% vs 93.3% had Cycle 5 Ctrough >20 µg/ml; the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (- 8.02%, 6.49%) for the stratified difference between groups was above the non-inferiority margin (- 12.5%). Pathological complete response (47.0% vs 50.0%) and central radiology review-assessed objective response (88.1% vs 82.0%) rates were comparable. Incidence of all-causality, grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events was 38.1% vs 45.5%; antidrug antibody rates were 0% vs 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: PF-05280014 demonstrated non-inferior pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to trastuzumab-EU in patients with operable HER2-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust.

Globally, biosimilars are expected to have a key role in improving patient access to biological therapies and addressing concerns regarding the escalating cost of health care. Indeed, in Europe, increased use of biologics and reduced drug prices have been observed after the introduction of biosimilars. Recently, several monoclonal antibody biosimilars of anticancer therapies have been approved, and numerous others are in various stages of clinical development. Biosimilars are authorized via a regulatory pathway separate from that used for generic drugs; they are also regulated separately from novel biologics. Biosimilar approval pathways in many major regulatory regions worldwide are, to a broad degree, scientifically aligned. However, owing to regional differences in health care priorities, policies, and resources, some important regulatory inconsistencies are evident. Acceptance of biosimilars by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients will be a key factor in the uptake of these therapies, and such regulatory variations could contribute to confusion and diminished confidence regarding the quality, efficacy, and reliability of these agents. Furthermore, the need for manufacturers to account for regulatory inconsistencies introduces inefficiencies and delays into biosimilar development programs. These issues should be addressed if biosimilars are to attain their maximal global potential. This review summarizes the evolution of the global biosimilar landscape and provides examples of inconsistencies between regulatory requirements in different regions. In addition, we review ongoing efforts to improve regulatory alignment and highlight the importance of education as a crucial factor in generating trust in, and acceptance of, biosimilars on a worldwide scale. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Biosimilars of monoclonal antibody anticancer therapies are beginning to emerge, and more are likely to become available for clinical use in the near future. The extent to which biosimilars can contribute to cancer care will depend on their level of acceptance by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients. A better understanding of the regulatory basis for the approval of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. In order to have informed discussions about treatment choices with their patients, oncologists should familiarize themselves with the biosimilar paradigm.

The Role of Rituximab in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatment and the Potential Utility of Biosimilars.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is managed with observation for asymptomatic or clinically silent disease; pharmacologic intervention is generally required for symptomatic patients with clinically significant adenopathy or cytopenia. In the front-line treatment of CLL, the current standard-of-care includes chemotherapy in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (e.g., rituximab, ofatumumab, or obinutuzumab) or ibrutinib as single agent. Despite the evolving treatment paradigm toward targeted therapy, it is likely that rituximab (plus chemotherapy), with or without targeted agents, will retain a significant role in CLL treatment. However, patents for many biologics, including rituximab, have expired or will expire in the near future. Furthermore, access to rituximab has remained challenging, particularly in countries with restricted resources. Together, these concerns have prompted the development of safe and effective rituximab biosimilars. The term "biosimilar" refers to a biologic that is highly similar to an approved reference (originator) product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences in purity, potency, or safety. Biosimilars are developed to treat the same condition(s) using the same treatment regimens as an approved reference biologic and have the potential to increase access to more affordable treatments. We review the importance of rituximab in the current treatment of CLL, the scientific basis of its future role in combination with chemotherapy, and the role of new and emerging agents in the treatment of CLL, which could potentially be used in combination with rituximab biosimilars. We also discuss rituximab biosimilars currently in development. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Front-line treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) include chemotherapy in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (e.g., rituximab, ofatumumab, or obinutuzumab) or ibrutinib as single agent. Despite the evolving treatment paradigm, it is likely rituximab (plus chemotherapy) and targeted agents undergoing clinical evaluation will retain a significant role in CLL treatment. However, patents for many biologics, including rituximab, have expired or will expire in the near future and, in many regions, access to rituximab remains challenging. Together, these concerns have prompted the development of safe and effective rituximab biosimilars, with the potential to increase access to more affordable treatments.

Bevacizumab biosimilars: scientific justification for extrapolation of indications.

The first biosimilar of bevacizumab was approved by the US FDA; other potential biosimilars of bevacizumab are in late-stage clinical development. Their availability offers opportunity for increased patient access across a number of oncologic indications. The regulatory pathway for biosimilar approval relies on the totality of evidence that includes a comprehensive analytical assessment, and a clinical comparability study in a relevant disease patient population. Extrapolation of indications for a biosimilar to other eligible indications held by the originator, in the absence of direct clinical comparison, frequently forms part of the regulatory judgment. Herein, we consider the evidence required to demonstrate biosimilarity for bevacizumab biosimilars, with particular focus on the rationale for extrapolation across oncologic indications.

Assessment of denosumab treatment effects and imaging response in patients with giant cell tumor of bone.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab has been shown to reduce tumor size and progression, reform mineralized bone, and increase intralesional bone density in patients with giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB); however, radiologic assessment of tumors in bone is challenging. The study objective was to assess tumor response to denosumab using three different imaging parameters in a prespecified analysis in patients with GCTB from two phase 2 studies. METHODS: The studies enrolled adults and adolescents (skeletally mature and at least 12 years of age) with radiographically measurable GCTB that were given denosumab 120 mg every 4 weeks, with additional doses on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1. The proportion of patients with an objective tumor response was assessed using either Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer response criteria (positron emission tomography [PET] scan criteria), or inverse Choi density/size (ICDS) criteria. Target lesions were measured by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (both studies), PET (study 2 only), or plain film radiograph (study 2 only). RESULTS: Most patients (71.6%) had an objective tumor response by at least one response criteria. Per RECIST, 25.1% of patients had a response; per PET scan criteria, 96.2% had a response; per ICDS, 76.1% had a response. 68.5% had an objective tumor response ≥ 24 weeks. Using any criteria, crude incidence of response ranged from 56% (vertebrae/skull) to 91% (lung/soft tissue), and 98.2% had tumor control ≥ 24 weeks. Reduced PET avidity appeared to be an early sign of response to denosumab treatment. CONCLUSION: Modified PET scan criteria and ICDS criteria indicate that most patients show responses and higher benefit rates than modified RECIST, and therefore may be useful for early assessment of response to denosumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical Trials Registry NCT00396279 (retrospectively registered November 6, 2006) and NCT00680992 (retrospectively registered May 20, 2008).

Exercise Is Medicine, But Does It Interfere With Medicine?

Exercise frequently is prescribed therapeutically, either on its own or combined with drugs. A drug's absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion can be affected by the user's anatomy and physiology, which are both changed by the myriad of complex adaptations to acute and chronic exercise. This article reviews the research that suggests exercise may influence a drug's plasma concentration, and thus its efficacy and safety.

Biosimilars: Practical Considerations for Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific and regulatory aspects of biosimilar development and practical considerations for the use of biosimilars that are relevant to pharmacists. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed and congress abstracts for publications pertaining to biosimilars were conducted from January 2016 to January 2017. Individual drug company web pages and governmental, regulatory, and other agency websites were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION: Published articles, regulatory guidelines, and other sources covering biologic/biosimilar development and approval, reporting results of biosimilar studies or survey research, and/or identifying biosimilars in development or approved for use in Europe or the United States were reviewed and included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of serious diseases, including hematological or autoimmune disorders and cancers. A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biologic (ie, reference or originator) and has no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. Unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics are large, complex proteins that cannot be exactly replicated, so the concept of a generic equivalent cannot be applied to biologics. Regulatory agencies have provided a framework for biosimilar approval, but there are many practical considerations for pharmacists, including interchangeability, substitution, naming, indication extrapolation, product labeling, therapeutic drug monitoring, manufacturer attributes, logistics of product use, and reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists will play a key role in managing the introduction of biosimilars into health care systems. Understanding the principles of biosimilar development and evolving regulatory guidelines relevant to their use will allow pharmacists to make informed decisions regarding formulary inclusion and educate patients and other health care providers about biosimilars.

Statistical Primer on Biosimilar Clinical Development.

A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference (originator) product in terms of safety, purity, and potency and is approved under specific regulatory approval processes. Because both the originator and the potential biosimilar are large and structurally complex proteins, biosimilars are not generic equivalents of the originator. Thus, the regulatory approach for a small-molecule generic is not appropriate for a potential biosimilar. As a result, different study designs and statistical approaches are used in the assessment of a potential biosimilar. This review covers concepts and terminology used in statistical analyses in the clinical development of biosimilars so that clinicians can understand how similarity is evaluated. This should allow the clinician to understand the statistical considerations in biosimilar clinical trials and make informed prescribing decisions when an approved biosimilar is available.

Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology.

Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, "intended copies" are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use in giant cell tumor of bone: interim results from a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is an aggressive primary osteolytic tumor. GCTB often involves the epiphysis, usually causing substantial pain and functional disability. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κΒ ligand (RANKL), is an effective treatment option for patients with advanced GCTB. This analysis of data from an ongoing, open-label study describes denosumab's effects on pain and analgesic use in patients with GCTB. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable disease (e.g. sacral or spinal GCTB, or multiple lesions including pulmonary metastases) were enrolled into Cohort 1 (N = 170), and patients with resectable disease whose planned surgery was associated with severe morbidity (e.g. joint resection, limb amputation, or hemipelvectomy) were enrolled into Cohort 2 (N = 101). Patients received denosumab (120 mg) subcutaneously every four weeks, with additional doses on study days 8 and 15. Patients assessed worst pain severity with the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, at each visit for the first six months, and every three months thereafter. RESULTS: Clinically relevant pain improvement was reported by 29% of patients in Cohort 1 and 35% in Cohort 2 during week 1 and by ≥ 50% of patients in each cohort at each study visit from months 2-30. Median time to clinically relevant improvement was 30 (95% CI 16, 57) days in Cohort 1 and 15 (95% CI 15, 29) days in Cohort 2. Results in patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline were similar. Fewer than 30% of patients in Cohort 1 and 10% in Cohort 2 experienced clinically relevant pain worsening at any visit through 27 months. Most patients had no/low analgesic use during the study. CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with denosumab experienced clinically relevant decreases in pain within two months.

Safety and efficacy of denosumab for adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumour of bone: interim analysis of an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a very rare, aggressive, and progressive osteolytic tumour for which no standard medicinal treatment or chemotherapy exists. We report interim safety and efficacy results from a phase 2 study of denosumab in patients with GCTB. METHODS: We did an international, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2 trial of patients with histologically confirmed GCTB and radiographically measurable active disease. Eligible patients were adults or skeletally mature adolescents with radiographic evidence of at least one mature long bone who were at least 12 years old and weighed at least 45 kg. We divided patients into three cohorts--those with surgically unsalvageable GCTB (cohort 1), those with salvageable GCTB whose surgery was associated with severe morbidity (cohort 2), and those who transferred from a previous study of denosumab for GCTB (cohort 3). Patients in cohorts 1 and 2 received 120 mg of subcutaneous denosumab every 4 weeks with loading doses on days 8 and 15 of the first cycle; those in cohort 3 continued the regimen from the previous study. Investigator-determined disease status and clinical benefit were assessed every 4 weeks. Our primary endpoint was the safety profile of denosumab in terms of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. Prespecified secondary endpoints were time to disease progression in cohort 1 and the proportion of patients without any surgery at 6 months in cohort 2. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. Efficacy analyses included all eligible patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00680992. FINDINGS: 282 patients, including ten adolescents, were included between Sept 9, 2008, and March 25, 2011. Of the 281 patients analysable for safety, three (1%) had osteonecrosis of the jaw and 15 (5%) hypocalcaemia. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypophosphataemia, which occurred in nine (3%) patients, and anaemia, back pain, and pain in extremities, each of which occurred in three patients (1%). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. On the basis of investigators' assessment of disease status, 163 of 169 (96%) analysable patients in cohort 1 had no disease progression after median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 5·8-21·0). In cohort 2, 74 of 100 (74%) analysable patients had no surgery and 16 of 26 (62%) patients who had surgery underwent a less morbid procedure than planned. Median follow-up in cohort 2 was 9·2 months (IQR 4·2-12·9). INTERPRETATION: Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of denosumab. Denosumab was associated with tumour responses and reduced the need for morbid surgery in patients with GCTB. Denosumab represents a new treatment option for patients with GCTB. FUNDING: Amgen.

Arterial desaturation rate does not influence self-selected knee extension force but alters ventilatory response to progressive hypoxia: A pilot study.

The absolute magnitude and rate of arterial desaturation each independently impair whole-body aerobic exercise. This study examined potential mechanisms underlying the rate-dependent relationship. Utilizing an exercise protocol involving unilateral, intermittent, isometric knee extensions (UIIKE), we provided sufficient reperfusion time between contractions to reduce the accumulation of intramuscular metabolic by-products that typically stimulate muscle afferents. The objective was to create a milieu conducive to accentuating any influence of arterial desaturation rate on muscular fatigue. Eight participants completed four UIIKE sessions, performing one 3 s contraction every 30s at a perceived intensity of 50% MVC for 25 min. Participants voluntarily adjusted their force generation to maintain perceptual effort at 50% MVC without feedback. Reductions in inspired oxygen fraction (FI O2 ) decreased arterial saturation from >98% to 70% with varying rates in three trials: FAST (5.3 ± 1.3 min), MED (11.8 ± 2.7 min), and SLOW (19.9 ± 3.7 min). FI O2 remained at 0.21 during the control trial. Force generation and muscle activation remained at baseline levels throughout UIIKE trials, unaffected by the magnitude or rate of desaturation. Minute ventilation increased with hypoxia (p < 0.05), and faster desaturation rates magnified this response. These findings demonstrate that arterial desaturation magnitude and rate independently affect ventilation, but do not influence fatigue development during UIIKE.

A mixed-methods landscape assessment of supportive care for heart failure.

Aim: Understanding factors that shape leading health systems' (LHS) perspectives around heart failure (HF) treatment. Patients & methods: First of its kind study using a cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-method design (from executives and frontline healthcare providers) with quantitative survey (n = 35) and qualitative interview (n = 12) data from 47 participants (41 different LHS). Results: 97% of LHS had dedicated HF programs, but variations in maturity highlights opportunities for care standardization. Treatment innovations continue, though practitioners may struggle to keep pace amid provider/patient barriers. HF programs strive to co-locate supportive care services to optimize treatment, but access can prove challenging. Conclusion: Opportunities exist, with external partner support, for LHS to become more comprehensive HF care providers, increasing standardization of care across LHS and improved HF treatment.

What is this summary about? We interviewed frontline healthcare workers (such as doctors and nurses) as well as executives at large US health systems to understand how they treat people with heart failure. What were the results? We learned that healthcare workers as well as executives would like to provide many different services to help people with heart failure. However, many health systems do not have all of these services available and can only provide a few basic services. We also learned healthcare workers sometimes struggle to keep up to date with new scientific discoveries and heart failure treatments. What do the results mean? With support from external healthcare partners, health systems can improve their ability to treat people with heart failure.

Phase 2 study of the efficacy and safety of ponsegromab in patients with cancer cachexia: PROACC-1 study design.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial metabolic wasting syndrome characterized by anorexia, unintentional loss of weight involving both skeletal muscle and adipose tissues, progressive functional impairment and reduced survival. Therapeutic strategies for this serious condition are very limited. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a cytokine that is implicated in cancer cachexia and may represent both a biomarker of cancer cachexia and a potential therapeutic target. Ponsegromab is a potent and selective humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits GDF-15-mediated signalling. Preclinical and preliminary phase 1 data suggest that ponsegromab-mediated inactivation of circulating GDF-15 may lead to improvement in key characteristics of cachexia. The primary objective of this phase 2 study is to assess the effect of ponsegromab on body weight in patients with cancer, cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations. Secondary objectives include assessing physical activity, physical function, actigraphy, appetite, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and safety. Exploratory objectives include evaluating pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, lumbar skeletal muscle index and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. METHODS: Approximately 168 adults with non-small-cell lung, pancreatic or colorectal cancers who have cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations will be randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT05546476). Participants meeting eligibility criteria will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of three dose groups of ponsegromab (100, 200 or 400 mg) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for an initial 12-week treatment period. This is followed by optional open-label treatment with ponsegromab of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint is mean change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. A mixed model for repeated measures followed by a Bayesian Emax model will be used for the primary analysis. Secondary endpoints include physical activity, physical function and actigraphy measured by remote digital sensors; patient-reported appetite-related symptoms assessed by Functional Assessment of Anorexia-Cachexia Therapy subscale scores; anorexia/appetite, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue evaluated according to questions from the Cancer-Related Cachexia Symptom Diary; and incidence of adverse events, safety laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiogram abnormalities. PERSPECTIVE: Cancer-related cachexia is an area of significant unmet medical need. This study will support the clinical development of ponsegromab as a novel inhibitor of GDF-15, which may ameliorate key pathologies of cancer cachexia to improve patient symptoms, functionality and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05546476.