Clinical Experience with Abemaciclib in Patients Previously Treated with Another CDK 4/6 Inhibitor in a Tertiary Hospital: A Case Series Study.

The three approved cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, including abemaciclib, have shown differences in their preclinical, pharmacological, and clinical data. Abemaciclib stands out for its broader target range and more rapid and intense activity. It has demonstrated efficacy as a monotherapy or in combination with tamoxifen in endocrine-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with prior chemotherapy. However, the clinical data on abemaciclib after exposure to previous CDK4/6 inhibitors are limited. In this single-center retrospective case series, we identified all patients who received abemaciclib until February 2022 after experiencing documented progression on palbociclib or ribociclib. The safety profile and clinical outcomes of abemaciclib treatment in this specific patient cohort were evaluated. Eleven patients were included in this retrospective case series, nine receiving abemaciclib with tamoxifen. Eight patients had visceral involvement, and the median age was 69 (ranging from 42 to 84). The median time from the end of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment to abemaciclib initiation was 17.5 months (ranging from 3 to 41 months). Patients had undergone a median of three prior therapies (ranging from 1 to 7), including chemotherapy in 54.5% of cases. The median follow-up time was six months (ranging from 1 to 22 months). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8 months (95% CI 3.9-12). Five patients continued abemaciclib treatment, and one patient with liver metastases achieved a complete hepatic response. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (72.7%, no grade ≥ 3) and asthenia (27.3%, no grade ≥ 3). Our preliminary findings suggest that abemaciclib could be an effective and safe treatment option for MBC patients who have previously received palbociclib or ribociclib.

Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID 19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional CPAP devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data are collected from patients admitted for Pneumonia due to COVID 19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support. RESULTS: Study carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98% and 99% on average after 30 and 60 min with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.122 respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (p = 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: The use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de dispositivos que aportan presión positiva continua en la vía aérea ha demostrado mejoría en diversas patologías que producen insuficiencia respiratoria. En el episodio de pandemia por COVID 19 el uso de estos dispositivos se ha generalizado, pero, debido a la escasez de dispositivos convencionales de CPAP, se han fabricado dispositivos alternativos. El objetivo de este estudio es describir el uso de estos dispositivos, así como su eficacia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se recogen datos de pacientes ingresados por Neumonía por COVID 19 en el Hospital de campaña de IFEMA. Se recogen datos de pacientes con insuficiencia respiratoria y necesidad de soporte ventilatorio. RESULTADOS: Estudio realizado sobre un total de 23 pacientes, con fecha ingreso en IFEMA. Se empleó CPAP alternativa en cinco pacientes (21,7%), mientras que en los 18 pacientes restantes (78,3%) se usó soporte ventilatorio con mascarilla reservorio o Ventimask efecto Venturi. Se observa un aumento progresivo de la saturación en aquellos pacientes en los que se empleó CPAP alternativa (de 94% de promedio a 98% y 99% de promedio tras 30 y 60 minutos con la máscara, respectivamente), aunque este cambio no resultó significativo (p = 0,058 y p = 0,122 respectivamente). No se observó un cambio significativo de frecuencia respiratoria al inicio y final de la medición en pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (p = 0,423) pero si entre los que no la usaron (p = 0,001). Se observa una mejoría estadísticamente significativa en la variable Saturación de oxigeno / Fracción inspirado de oxígeno en los pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (p = 0,040). CONCLUSIÓN: El uso de estos dispositivos ha ayudado al trabajo ventilatorio de varios pacientes mejorando sus parámetros de oxigenación. Para observar mejor la evolución de los pacientes sometidos a esta terapia y compararlos con pacientes con otro tipo de soporte ventilatorio, son necesarios más estudios en los que se aleatorice su uso.

[Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19]. / Métodos alternativos de CPAP para el tratamiento de insuficiencia respiratoria grave secundaria a neumonía por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID-19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data are collected from patients admitted for pneumonia due to COVID-19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support. RESULTS: Study carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98 and 99% on average after 30 and 60 minutes with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.122, respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (p = 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.040) CONCLUSION: The use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.