Effect of cumulative dose of brentuximab vedotin maintenance in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplant: an analysis of real-world outcomes.

Sixteen cycles of Brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in high-risk relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma demonstrated an improved 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo. However, most patients are unable to complete all 16 cycles at full dose due to toxicity. This retrospective, multicenter study investigated the effect of cumulative maintenance BV dose on 2-year PFS. Data were collected from patients who received at least one cycle of BV maintenance after ASCT with one of the following high-risk features: primary refractory disease (PRD), extra-nodal disease (END), or relapse <12 months (RL<12) from the end of frontline therapy. Cohort 1 had patients with >75% of the planned total cumulative dose, cohort 2 with 51-75% of dose, and cohort 3 with ≤50% of dose. The primary outcome was 2-year PFS. A total of 118 patients were included. Fifty percent had PRD, 29% had RL<12, and 39% had END. Forty-four percent of patients had prior exposure to BV and 65% were in complete remission before ASCT. Only 14% of patients received the full planned BV dose. Sixty-one percent of patients discontinued maintenance early and majority of those (72%) were due to toxicity. The 2-year PFS for the entire population was 80.7%. The 2-year PFS was 89.2% for cohort 1 (n=39), 86.2% for cohort 2 (n=33), and 77.9% for cohort 3 (n=46) (P=0.70). These data are reassuring for patients who require dose reductions or discontinuation to manage toxicity.

Small increase in dolutegravir trough, but equivalent total dolutegravir exposure with simeprevir in HIV/HCV seronegative volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir, an HIV integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and simeprevir, an HCV NS3/4A PI, have the potential to interact as dolutegravir is a P-glycoprotein, uridine glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 and cytochrome P4503A substrate and simeprevir has been shown to mildly inhibit these. OBJECTIVES: To compare dolutegravir and simeprevir pharmacokinetics (PK) when given separately versus in combination. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received: (i) 150 mg of simeprevir once daily for 7 days; (ii) 50 mg of dolutegravir once daily for 7 days; and (iii) 150 mg of simeprevir once daily plus 50 mg of dolutegravir once daily for 7 days, with randomization to treatment sequence. Twenty-four hour intensive PK sampling was performed on day 7 of each sequence following observed dosing and a standardized meal. PK parameters were determined using non-compartmental methods and compared using paired t-tests. Bioequivalence for area under the curve (AUCtau) and maximum concentration (Cmax) were also assessed. NCT02404805. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed all three sequences. Dolutegravir trough was increased 24% (P = 0.0003) with simeprevir. Dolutegravir AUCtau was increased 15% (P = 0.002), but was deemed bioequivalent as the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio was 107%-123%. Dolutegravir Cmax was bioequivalent. Simeprevir PK was unaffected by dolutegravir. There were no discontinuations due to adverse events and all adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Dolutegravir trough was increased slightly with simeprevir, but AUCtau was bioequivalent. Despite the increase in trough, dolutegravir concentrations were well within the range with established safety data. Suggesting that simeprevir and dolutegravir can be safely co-administered.

Multicenter evaluation of the addition of eltrombopag to immunosuppressive therapy for adults with severe aplastic anemia.

Eltrombopag has been shown to improve response rates when added to standard therapy in adults with severe aplastic anemia in controlled trial settings. However, outcomes in real-world populations have mostly been examined in small retrospective studies. This robust, multicenter, retrospective cohort study across six academic health systems compared outcomes in patients who received immunosuppressive therapy with or without eltrombopag. The study included 82 patients who received front-line therapy from January 2014 to August 2021. Overall response rates at 6 months did not differ significantly for patients receiving eltrombopag versus immunosuppressive therapy alone (58% v. 65%, p = 0.56). However, complete response rates at 6 and 12 months were over two times higher in the eltrombopag arm (29% v. 12%, p = 0.06 and 48% v. 18%, p = 0.005). Rates of hepatotoxicity were similar across both arms. Eltrombopag addition did not impact overall survival (median not reached in either arm at 2 years, p = 0.86) or disease-free survival (median not reached v. 13.3 months at 2 years, p = 0.20). Eltrombopag may not produce as large of a benefit in real-world settings compared to controlled trial settings but may offer patients deeper responses with similar rates of toxicity to immunosuppressive therapy alone.

Brentuximab vedotin plus AVD for Hodgkin lymphoma: incidence and management of peripheral neuropathy in a multisite cohort.

Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) is increasingly used for frontline treatment of stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was the most common and treatment-limiting side effect seen in clinical trials but has not been studied in a nontrial setting, in which clinicians may have different strategies for managing it. We conducted a multisite retrospective study to characterize PN in patients who received BV + AVD for newly diagnosed cHL. One hundred fifty-three patients from 10 US institutions were eligible. Thirty-four patients (22%) had at least 1 ineligibility criteria for ECHELON-1, including stage, performance status, and comorbidities. PN was reported by 80% of patients during treatment; 39% experienced grade (G) 1, 31% G2, and 10% G3. In total, BV was modified in 44% of patients because of PN leading to BV discontinuation in 23%, dose reduction in 17%, and temporary hold in 4%. With a median follow-up of 24 months, PN resolution was documented in 36% and improvement in 33% at the last follow-up. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) for the advanced-stage patients was 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.90) and overall survival was 97.4% (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Patients who discontinued BV because of PN did not have inferior PFS. In the nontrial setting, BV + AVD was associated with a high incidence of PN. In our cohort, which includes patients who would not have been eligible for the pivotal ECHELON-1 trial, BV discontinuation rates were higher than previously reported, but 2-year outcomes remain comparable.

Real-world experience of patients with multiple myeloma receiving ide-cel after a prior BCMA-targeted therapy.

Most patients with multiple myeloma experience disease relapse after treatment with a B-cell maturation antigen-targeted therapy (BCMA-TT), and data describing outcomes for patients treated with sequential BCMA-TT are limited. We analyzed clinical outcomes for patients infused with standard-of-care idecabtagene vicleucel, an anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, at 11 US medical centers. A total of 50 patients with prior BCMA-TT exposure (38 antibody-drug conjugate, 7 bispecific, 5 CAR T) and 153 patients with no prior BCMA-TT were infused with ide-cel, with a median follow-up duration of 4.5 and 6.0 months, respectively. Safety outcomes between cohorts were comparable. The prior BCMA-TT cohort had a lower overall response rate (74% versus 88%; p = 0.021), median duration of response (7.4 versus 9.6 months; p = 0.03), and median progression-free survival (3.2 months versus 9.0 months; p = 0.0002) compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-TT. All five patients who received a prior anti-BCMA CAR T responded to ide-cel, and survival outcomes were best for this subgroup. In conclusion, treatment with ide-cel yielded meaningful clinical responses in real-world patients exposed to a prior BCMA-TT, though response rates and durability were suboptimal compared to those not treated with a prior BCMA-TT.

Levetiracetam Compared to Phenobarbital as a First Line Therapy for Neonatal Seizures: An Unexpected Influence of Benzodiazepines on Seizure Response.

OBJECTIVES: Neonatal seizures are common complications. Phenobarbital is the agent of choice but leads to adverse neurologic outcomes. There has been increased use of newer agents like levetiracetam. The objective of this study was determining the rate of seizure resolution in neonates treated with phenobarbital or levetiracetam. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study from June 1, 2012-June 1, 2018 evaluating seizure resolution in neonates following first-line treatment with phenobarbital versus levetiracetam. Data were collected via review of the patient's charts in the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was seizure resolution without addition of a second antiepileptic agent. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of pertinent variables. RESULTS: Each group included 73 patients. The mean gestational age was 36.01 and 37.91 weeks for the phenobarbital and levetiracetam groups, respectively (p = 0.011). The phenobarbital group had higher rates of intraventricular hemorrhage at baseline. The median birth weight was 2750 and 3002 grams in the phenobarbital and levetiracetam groups, respectively (p = 0.10). Forty-five neonates (61.6%) achieved seizure resolution with phenobarbital compared with 30 neonates (41.1%) with levetiracetam (p = 0.01). In neonates who did not receive a benzodiazepine, seizure resolution was similar between groups (51-52%). In neonates who received a benzodiazepine, seizure resolution rate was 94.1% (16/17 neonates) for phenobarbital and 18.2% (4/22 neonates) for levetiracetam. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest seizure resolution with levetiracetam, and phenobarbital may be impacted by benzodiazepine administration. If no benzodiazepine is used, these agents demonstrated similar efficacy. Further research into the pharmacodynamic interaction with benzodiazepines is necessary.