Efficacy and safety of odevixibat in patients with Alagille syndrome (ASSERT): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with Alagille syndrome, cholestasis-associated clinical features can include high serum bile acids and severe pruritus that can necessitate liver transplantation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor odevixibat versus placebo in patients with Alagille syndrome. METHODS: The ASSERT study was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at 21 medical centres or hospitals in ten countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Poland, Türkiye, the UK, and the USA). Eligible patients had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Alagille syndrome, a history of significant pruritus, and elevated serum bile acids. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral odevixibat 120 µg/kg per day or placebo for 24 weeks (in a block size of six and stratified by age: <10 years and ≥10 years to <18 years) via a web-based system. Patients, clinicians, study staff, and people analysing the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in caregiver-reported scratching score (on the PRUCISION instrument; range 0-4) from baseline to weeks 21-24. The prespecified key secondary efficacy endpoint was change in serum bile acid concentration from baseline to the average of weeks 20 and 24. Outcomes were analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug (the full analysis set for efficacy outcomes and the safety analysis set for safety outcomes). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04674761) and EudraCT (2020-004011-28), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2021, and Sept 9, 2022, 52 patients were randomly assigned to receive odevixibat (n=35) or placebo (n=17), all of whom were included in the analysis sets. The median age was 5·5 years (IQR 3·2 to 8·9). 27 (52%) of 52 patients were male and 25 (48%) were female. The mean scratching score was elevated at baseline in both groups (2·8 [SD 0·5] for odevixibat vs 3·0 [0·6] for placebo). Mean scratching scores at weeks 21-24 were 1·1 (0·9) for odevixibat and 2·2 (1·0) for placebo, representing a least-squares (LS) mean change of -1·7 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·3) for odevixibat and -0·8 (-1·3 to -0·3) for placebo, which was significantly greater for odevixibat than for placebo (difference in LS mean change from baseline -0·9 [95% CI -1·4 to -0·3]; p=0·0024). Odevixibat also resulted in significantly greater reductions in mean serum bile acids from baseline versus placebo (237 µmol/L [SD 115] with odevixibat vs 246 µmol/L [121] with placebo) to the average of weeks 20 and 24 (149 µmol/L [102] vs 271 µmol/L [167]; LS mean change -90 µmol/L [95% CI -133 to -48] with odevixibat vs 22 µmol/L [-35 to 80] with placebo; difference in LS mean change -113 µmol/L [95% CI -179 to -47]; p=0·0012). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (ten [29%] of 35 patients in the odevixibat group vs one [6%] of 17 in the placebo group) and pyrexia (eight [23%] vs four [24%]). Seven patients had serious treatment-emergent adverse events during the treatment period: five (14%) in the odevixibat group and two (12%) in the placebo group. No patients discontinued treatment and there were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: Odevixibat could be an efficacious non-surgical intervention to improve pruritus, reduce serum bile acids, and enhance the standard of care in patients with Alagille syndrome. Longer-term safety and efficacy data of odevixibat in this population are awaited from the ongoing, open-label ASSERT-EXT study. FUNDING: Albireo Pharma, an Ipsen company.

Brigatinib Versus Crizotinib in Advanced ALK Inhibitor-Naive ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Second Interim Analysis of the Phase III ALTA-1L Trial.

PURPOSE: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) versus crizotinib in advanced ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at first interim analysis (99 events; median brigatinib follow-up, 11.0 months) in the open-label, phase III ALTA-1L trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02737501). We report results of the second prespecified interim analysis (150 events). METHODS: Patients with ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-day lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Investigator-assessed efficacy, blood samples for pharmacokinetic assessments, and patient-reported outcomes were also collected. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). With median follow-up of 24.9 months for brigatinib (150 PFS events), brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS versus crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.68]; log-rank P < .0001; median, 24.0 v 11.0 months). Investigator-assessed PFS HR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.61; median, 29.4 v 9.2 months). No new safety concerns emerged. Brigatinib delayed median time to worsening of global health status/QoL scores compared with crizotinib (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.00]; log-rank P = .049). Brigatinib daily area under the plasma concentration-time curve was not a predictor of PFS (HR, 1.005 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.031]; P = .69). CONCLUSION: Brigatinib represents a once-daily ALK inhibitor with superior efficacy, tolerability, and QoL over crizotinib, making it a promising first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated With Lenalidomide- and/or Bortezomib-containing Regimens Without Stem Cell Transplant in a Real-world Setting.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are sparse. Using United States claims databases, we analyzed treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health care utilization and costs in patients receiving lenalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient claims were obtained from a large commercial and Medicare database (October 2009 to May 2015). Patients with NDMM who received lenalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing therapy and did not receive stem cell transplant (SCT) were analyzed. Duration of treatment (DOT), time to next treatment (TTNT), and health care utilization and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 3075 patients, 1767 received doublet therapy (814 lenalidomide-dexamethasone [Rd], 953 bortezomib-dexamethasone [Vd]) and 464 received triplet therapy (318 lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone [RVd], 146 cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone [CyBord]). Rd versus Vd resulted in longer median DOT (12.0 vs. 5.9 months; P < .0001) and median TTNT (36.7 vs. 24.4 months; P = .0005). Year 1 costs were greater with Rd versus Vd (Δ = $14,964; P = .0009), primarily owing to higher pharmacy costs; outpatient physician visits and chemotherapy administration costs were lower. Median DOT (14.8 vs. 9.0 months; P < .0001) and median TTNT (35.7 vs. 22.3 months; P = .0007) were longer with RVd versus CyBord; year 1 costs were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant, the median duration of therapy was approximately 70% of that in clinical trial observations. Lenalidomide therapy versus Vd and CyBord resulted in longer DOT, which correlated with longer TTNT, and higher pharmacy costs, which were partially offset by lower outpatient and chemotherapy administration costs.

Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a US community-based real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND: Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. RESULTS: This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. CONCLUSION: nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

Relationship between lenalidomide dose modification, duration of therapy, and long-term outcomes in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Dose reductions or interruptions may be required to manage treatment-associated adverse events among patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) treated with lenalidomide; such modifications are recommended to sustain therapy and maximize treatment duration. The aim of this retrospective case-control study was to determine the relationship between lenalidomide dose modification (DM), duration of lenalidomide therapy (DOT), and patient outcomes in patients with MDS. Those patients with database follow-up >20months (n=305) were more likely to have received erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) (P=0.004), had longer median DOT (P<0.001), and higher rate of DM (P<0.001) versus those with shorter follow-up (n=306). Multivariate analysis indicated that lenalidomide DM (odds ratio [OR] 1.08) and prior ESA treatment (OR 2.40) were significantly associated with longer follow-up; transfusion dependence before lenalidomide initiation was associated with a significantly shorter follow-up (OR 0.60). These data suggest that effective management of lenalidomide treatment using dose reduction and/or delay is associated with longer DOT, which can improve patient outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness and resource utilization of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a US community setting.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a clinically relevant, statistically significant survival benefit with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX vs single-agent gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), little is known regarding their real-world effectiveness. We analyzed patients with mPC using a nationally representative electronic medical records database to address this unmet need. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the Navigating Cancer database compared outcomes among patients who received first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, or gemcitabine for mPC. Effectiveness, safety, and supportive care use were examined. nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was the reference for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except age (oldest patients were in the gemcitabine cohort followed by nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, then FOLFIRINOX). Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (n=122) demonstrated similar time to treatment discontinuation (TTD; median, 3.4 vs 3.8 months; P=0.947) and database persistence (DP; median, 8.6 vs 8.6 months; P=0.534) vs FOLFIRINOX (n=80); however, TTD (median, 3.4 vs 2.2 months; P<0.001) and DP (median, 8.6 vs 5.3 months; P=0.030) were significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine (n=46). There were more any-grade adverse events with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine vs nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (95% or 89% vs 84%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis confirms the phase III MPACT trial findings and demonstrates that nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine has effectiveness similar to that of FOLFIRINOX but greater tolerability for treating mPC despite younger patients being in the FOLFIRINOX cohort. These findings support nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as an appropriate first-line treatment option for patients with mPC.

Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node positivity in thin melanoma (

BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of an established survival benefit of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, this technique has been increasingly applied in the staging of thin (