Using prednisolone and cortisol assays to assess adherence in oral corticosteroid dependant asthma: An analysis of test-retest repeatability.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence is an important issue within severe asthma. Prednisolone and cortisol assays have been proposed as an inexpensive, objective measure of adherence for oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent asthmatics, however, little is known about the reliability of these tests. METHODS: 41 severe OCS-dependent asthmatics had their prednisolone and cortisol measured during six study visits over a three month time period. Subjects were classed as non-adherent/variably-adherent if they had undetectable prednisolone and/or cortisol >100 nmol/L. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the test-retest reliability of prednisolone and cortisol, and Gwets AC1 kappa was used to assess the reliability of the adherence classification. Mean change in blood eosinophils for adherent and variably/non-adherent visits were calculated and linear regression with cluster-robust standard errors was used to test for differences. RESULTS: 30 subjects were included in the analysis. Reliability was poor for prednisolone (ICC: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.59), and moderate for cortisol (ICC: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.74). Using the combined rule, subjects were classified as adherent during 141 (88%) visits, with 21 subjects (70%) adherent during all study visits. The adherence classification had almost perfect reliability (Kappa: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.95). Blood eosinophils were decreased by 47 cells/µl (95% CI: 11, 84) during adherent visits but increased by 65 cells/µl (95% CI: 4, 134; Pdifference = 0.03) during variably/non-adherent visits. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing adherence to maintenance OCS using a simple rule based on prednisolone and cortisol assays is highly reliable and correlated with blood eosinophil changes. Clinicians should have confidence in the results of this rule.

Change in type-2 biomarkers and related cytokines with prednisolone in uncontrolled severe oral corticosteroid dependent asthmatics: an interventional open-label study.

Type-2 biomarkers and related cytokines (IL-5, IL-13), lung function and asthma symptoms were measured in 44 poorly-controlled severe oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent asthmatics for up to 88 days after a 7-day prednisolone boost (0.5 mg/kg). High-dose OCS reduced median blood eosinophils (-60 cells/µl; 95% CI -140 to 10), periostin (-8.4 ng/mL; -11.6 to -2.8), FeNO (-19.0 ppb; -28.5 to -4.0), IL-5 (-0.17 pg/mL; -0.28 to -0.08) and IL-13 (-0.15 pg/mL; -0.27 to -0.03). There were small improvements in mean FEV1 (0.16 L; 0.05 to 0.27) and (Asthma Control Questionnaire) ACQ-7 score (0.3; 0.0 to 0.7). Study measures returned to baseline 1-month postintervention. Following rescue OCS, 1 month is sufficient before using type-2 biomarkers to guide long-term treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01948401.

Agreement Between Rectosigmoidoscopy and Colonoscopy Analyses of Disease Activity and Healing in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopy limited to the rectosigmoid colon is the standard technique used to measure endoscopic healing in ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trials. We evaluated whether rectosigmoidoscopy adequately measures UC activity in the more proximal colon. METHODS: We analyzed data from a phase 2, placebo-controlled study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderate to severely active UC who had not responded to standard therapy. Central readers determined Mayo Clinic endoscopic subscores (MCSe) and ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity (UCEIS) scores from the rectosigmoid and proximal colon in videos of 331 examinations performed at baseline, week 6, and week 10. Rates of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1, MCSe = 0) and scores from rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy analyses were compared among 239 examinations with endoscopic assessment proximal to the rectosigmoid colon. RESULTS: There was a high degree of correlation between findings from rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy in assessment of disease activity based on MCSe of 2 or higher (r = 0.84) or MCSe of 1 or higher (r = 0.96), or the UCEIS score (r = 0.92). In 230 of 239 videos, findings from rectosigmoidoscopy agreed with those from colonoscopy in the detection of active disease (MCSe ≥ 2; n = 205) or healing (MCSe ≤ 1; n = 25). In 9 videos (2 taken at baseline, 7 taken after treatment), colonoscopy found proximal disease activity not detected by rectosigmoidoscopy. Post-treatment discordance was more frequent in the placebo group, affecting assessment of efficacy at week 10. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, there were discordant findings from only 1 video. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of correlation in assessments of UC activity made by rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy. For detection of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1), colonoscopy found persistent proximal lesions in the placebo group, which affected efficacy analyses. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, the concordance between rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy was nearly perfect.

Etrolizumab versus adalimumab or placebo as induction therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (HIBISCUS): two phase 3 randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission relative to placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The HIBISCUS studies aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab to adalimumab and placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: HIBISCUS I and HIBISCUS II were identically designed, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies of etrolizumab, adalimumab, and placebo in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. All patients had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks; subcutaneous adalimumab 160 mg on day 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg at weeks 4, 6, and 8; or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was induction of remission at week 10 (defined as MCS of 2 or lower, with individual subscores of 1 or lower, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) with etrolizumab compared with placebo. Pooled analyses of both studies comparing etrolizumab and adalimumab were examined for several clinical and endoscopic endpoints. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163759 (HIBISCUS I), NCT02171429 (HIBISCUS II). FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and May 25, 2020, each study screened 652 patients (HIBISCUS I) and 613 patients (HIBISCUS II). Each study enrolled and randomly assigned 358 patients (HIBISCUS I etrolizumab n=144, adalimumab n=142, placebo n=72; HIBISCUS II etrolizumab n=143; adalimumab n=143; placebo n=72). In HIBISCUS I, 28 (19·4%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group and five (6·9%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 12·3% (95% CI 1·6 to 20·6; p=0·017) in favour of etrolizumab. In HIBISCUS II, 26 (18·2%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (11·1%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 7·2% (95% CI -3·8 to 16·1; p=0·17). In the pooled analysis, etrolizumab was not superior to adalimumab for induction of remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, histological remission, or endoscopic remission; however, similar numerical results were observed in both groups. In HIBISCUS I, 50 (35%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, compared with 61 (43%) of 142 in the adalimumab group and 26 (36%) of 72 in the placebo group. In HIBISCUS II, 63 (44%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, as did 62 (43%) of 143 in the adalimumab group and 33 (46%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in all groups was ulcerative colitis flare. The incidence of serious adverse events in the pooled patient population was similar for etrolizumab (15 [5%] of 287) and placebo (seven [5%] of 144) and lower for adalimumab (six [2%] of 285). Two patients in the etrolizumab group died; neither death was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Etrolizumab was superior to placebo for induction of remission in HIBISCUS I, but not in HIBISCUS II. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in both studies. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab for maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (LAUREL): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab for maintenance of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study (LAUREL) across 111 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18-80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. During open-label induction, participants received subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks. Participants who had clinical response at week 10 (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) proceeded into the double-blind maintenance phase and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or matched placebo until week 62. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, treatment with immunosuppressants, baseline disease activity, and week 10 remission status. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was remission at week 62 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) among patients with a clinical response at week 10, measured in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02165215, and is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2014, and June 4, 2020, 658 patients were screened for eligibility and 359 were enrolled into the induction phase. 214 (60%) patients had a clinical response at week 10 and were randomly assigned to receive etrolizumab (n=108) or placebo (n=106) in the maintenance phase. 80 (74%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 42 (40%) in the placebo group completed the study through week 62. Four patients in the placebo group did not receive study treatment and were excluded from the analyses. At week 62, 32 (29·6%) of 108 patients in the etrolizumab group and 21 (20·6%) of 102 in the placebo group were in remission (adjusted treatment difference 7·7% [95% CI -4·2 to 19·2]; p=0·19). A greater proportion of patients reported one or more adverse events in the placebo group (82 [80%] of 102) than in the etrolizumab group (70 [65%] of 108); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (16 [15%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 37 [36%] in the placebo group). Ten (9%) patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (8%) in the placebo group reported one or more serious adverse events. No deaths were reported in either treatment group. INTERPRETATION: No significant differences were observed between maintenance etrolizumab and placebo in the primary endpoint of remission at week 62 among patients who had a clinical response at week 10. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in this population and no new safety signals were identified. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (GARDENIA): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of etrolizumab with infliximab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study (GARDENIA) across 114 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18-80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 8 weeks thereafter for 52 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had both clinical response at week 10 (MCS ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) and clinical remission at week 54 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1); efficacy was analysed using a modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). GARDENIA was designed to show superiority of etrolizumab over infliximab for the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02136069, and is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 24, 2014, and June 23, 2020, 730 patients were screened for eligibility and 397 were enrolled and randomly assigned to etrolizumab (n=199) or infliximab (n=198). 95 (48%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 103 (52%) in the infliximab group completed the study through week 54. At week 54, 37 (18·6%) of 199 patients in the etrolizumab group and 39 (19·7%) of 198 in the infliximab group met the primary endpoint (adjusted treatment difference -0·9% [95% CI -8·7 to 6·8]; p=0·81). The number of patients reporting one or more adverse events was similar between treatment groups (154 [77%] of 199 in the etrolizumab group and 151 [76%] of 198 in the infliximab group); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (55 [28%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 43 [22%] in the infliximab group). More patients in the etrolizumab group reported serious adverse events (including serious infections) than did those in the infliximab group (32 [16%] vs 20 [10%]); the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis (12 [6%] and 11 [6%]). There was one death during follow-up, in the infliximab group due to a pulmonary embolism, which was not considered to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this trial is the first phase 3 maintenance study in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to use infliximab as an active comparator. Although the study did not show statistical superiority for the primary endpoint, etrolizumab performed similarly to infliximab from a clinical viewpoint. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-ß7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. METHODS: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. FINDINGS: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). INTERPRETATION: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dual targeting of lymphocyte homing and retention through α4ß7 and αEß7 inhibition in inflammatory bowel disease.

Anti-integrins are therapeutically effective for inflammatory bowel disease, yet the relative contribution of α4ß7 and αEß7 to gut lymphocyte trafficking is not fully elucidated. Here, we evaluate the effect of α4ß7 and αEß7 blockade using a combination of murine models of gut trafficking and longitudinal gene expression analysis in etrolizumab-treated patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Dual blockade of α4ß7 and αEß7 reduces CD8+ T cell accumulation in the gut to a greater extent than blockade of either integrin alone. Anti-αEß7 reduces epithelial:T cell interactions and promotes egress of activated T cells from the mucosa into lymphatics. Inflammatory gene expression is greater in human intestinal αEß7+ T cells. Etrolizumab-treated patients with CD display a treatment-specific reduction in inflammatory and cytotoxic intraepithelial lymphocytes (IEL) genes. Concurrent blockade of α4ß7 and αEß7 promotes reduction of cytotoxic IELs and inflammatory T cells in the gut mucosa through a stepwise inhibition of intestinal tissue entry and retention.

Assessment of Correlation Between Early and Late Efficacy Endpoints to Identify Potential Surrogacy Relationships in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: a Literature-Based Meta-analysis of 108 Phase II and Phase III Studies.

Correlations between early and late efficacy endpoints were assessed to identify potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) with clinical trial-level data in three non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) subtypes: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). One hundred and eight phase II-III trials (129 trial arms) in DLBCL, FL, and MCL were identified and included in the database. Correlations between efficacy endpoints were analyzed using weighted linear regression and Pearson's coefficient of determination (R 2). In newly diagnosed DLBCL, 6-month PFS was strongly correlated with 2-year OS (R 2 = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.96). Six-month PFS was strongly correlated with 3-year PFS (R 2 = 0.89, 95% CI 0.62-0.96) in FL and was moderately correlated with 2-year OS (R 2 = 0.69, 95% CI 0.40-0.91) in MCL trials. Linear regression determined that a 10% increase in 6-month PFS would yield a 13% ± 1.2% increase in 2-year OS in DLBCL, a 23% ± 1.1% increase in 3-year PFS in FL, or a 6.7% ± 1.0% increase in 2-year OS in MCL. Both 6-month PFS and complete response (CR) rate were moderately correlated with median PFS in FL trials with R 2 = 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.98) and R 2 = 0.69 (95% CI 0.22-0.89), respectively. Six-month PFS is a potential surrogate endpoint for 2-year OS in newly diagnosed DLBCL and MCL and for 3-year PFS in FL. Both 6-month PFS and CR rate are potential surrogate endpoints for median PFS in FL patients. Confirmation and validation of these correlations may facilitate early interpretation of NHL trials.

A phase 2 study of the BH3 mimetic BCL2 inhibitor navitoclax (ABT-263) with or without rituximab, in previously untreated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

We evaluated the safety and biologic activity of the BH3 mimetic protein, navitoclax, combined with rituximab, in comparison to rituximab alone. One hundred and eighteen patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were randomized to receive eight weekly doses of rituximab (arm A), eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax for 12 weeks (arm B) or eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm C). Investigator-assessed overall response rates (complete [CR] and partial [PR]) were 35% (arm A), 55% (arm B, p = 0.19 vs. A) and 70% (arm C, p = 0.0034 vs. A). Patients with del(17p) or high levels of BCL2 had significantly better clinical responses when treated with navitoclax. Navitoclax in combination with rituximab was well tolerated as initial therapy for patients with CLL, yielded higher response rates than rituximab alone and resulted in prolonged progression-free survival with treatment beyond 12 weeks.

Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Obinutuzumab (GA101) With Rituximab in Patients With Relapsed CD20+ Indolent B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Final Analysis of the GAUSS Study.

PURPOSE: Obinutuzumab (GA101), a novel glycoengineered type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated responses in single-arm studies of patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is the first prospective, randomized study comparing safety and efficacy of obinutuzumab with rituximab in relapsed indolent lymphoma. The primary end point of this study was the overall response rate (ORR) in patients with follicular lymphoma after induction and safety in patients with indolent lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 175 patients with relapsed CD20(+) indolent lymphoma requiring therapy and with previous response to a rituximab-containing regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) to four once-per-week infusions of either obinutuzumab (1,000 mg) or rituximab (375 mg/m(2)). Patients without evidence of disease progression after induction therapy received obinutuzumab or rituximab maintenance therapy every 2 months for up to 2 years. RESULTS: Among patients with follicular lymphoma (n = 149), ORR seemed higher for obinutuzumab than rituximab (44.6% v 33.3%; P = .08). This observation was also demonstrated by a blinded independent review panel that measured a higher ORR for obinutuzumab (44.6% v 26.7%; P = .01). However, this difference did not translate into an improvement in progression-free survival. No new safety signals were observed for obinutuzumab, and the incidence of adverse events was balanced between arms, with the exception of infusion-related reactions and cough, which were higher in the obinutuzumab arm. CONCLUSION: Obinutuzumab demonstrated a higher ORR without appreciable differences in safety compared with rituximab. However, the clinical benefit of obinutuzumab in this setting remains unclear and should be evaluated within phase III trials.

Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to quantify the relationship between prosthesis size adjusted for patient size (prosthesis-patient size) and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Data from nine representative sources on 13,258 aortic valve replacements provided 69,780 patient-years of follow-up (mean 5.3 +/- 4.7 years), with reliable survival estimates to 15 years. Prostheses included 5757 stented porcine xenografts, 3198 stented bovine pericardial xenografts, 3583 mechanical valves, and 720 allografts. Manufacturers' labeled prosthesis size was 19 mm or smaller in 1109 patients. Expressions of prosthesis-patient size assessed were indexed internal prosthesis orifice area (in centimeters squared per square meter of body surface area) and standardized internal prosthesis orifice size (Z, the number of SDs from mean normal native aortic valve size). Multivariable hazard domain analysis with balancing score and risk factor adjustment quantified the association of prosthesis-patient size with survival. RESULTS: Prosthesis-patient size down to at least 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not adversely affect intermediate- or long-term survival (P >.2). However, 30-day mortality increased 1% to 2% when indexed orifice area fell below 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) (P =.002) or standardized orifice size fell below -2.5 Z (P =.0003). The increased early risk affected fewer than 1% of patients receiving bioprostheses but about 25% of those receiving mechanical devices. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic prosthesis-patient size down to 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not reduce intermediate- or long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. However, patient-prosthesis size under 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or -2.5 Z was associated with a 1% to 2% increase in 30-day mortality. Prosthesis-patient sizes this small or smaller were rarely implanted in patients receiving bioprostheses.

Phase III safety study of rituximab administered as a 90-minute infusion in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma.

This phase III, multicenter, single-arm trial investigated the impact of 90 min rituximab infusions on infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received six or eight cycles of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone for DLBCL or plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone for FL. A total of 425 patients received the first rituximab infusion per standard guidelines; median duration 240 min. Patients who did not experience grade ≥ 3 IRRs received subsequent infusions over 90 min (363 patients). A total of 303 patients received ≥ 6 cycles of rituximab. Fifty-three patients withdrew after cycle 1; 10 for grade 3 or 4 IRRs and one for a grade 3 adverse event. During cycle 2, 139 patients had IRRs, including four grade 3 IRRs. A 90 min rituximab infusion is well tolerated and feasible for patients with DLBCL or FL who tolerate the first standard rate infusion.