Ophthalmological assessment of crizotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: During crizotinib clinical evaluation, visual disturbances, generally of grade 1 severity, were frequently reported adverse events (AE). Consequently, ophthalmologic assessments were included in a patient subgroup enrolled in PROFILE 1001 (NCT00585195), a phase 1, open-label, single-arm trial of crizotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and are reported here. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At least 30 patients were required to undergo ophthalmologic assessments, including: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error, pupil size, slit-lamp anterior segment biomicroscopy, intraocular inflammation, intraocular pressure, retinal fundoscopic exams, fundus photography, ocular characteristics, and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Scheduled assessments included those at baseline, Cycle 1 Day 15, Cycle 3 Day 1 (C3D1), annually during treatment, and end of treatment (28 days after last crizotinib dose). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients completed all required ophthalmologic assessments through C3D1, and 22 (66.7 %) had abnormal findings on ≥1 ophthalmologic test. Clinically important changes were ≥2-line loss in BCVA in 10 patients (30.3 %), >±1.25-diopter change in refractive error in 3 patients (9.1 %), >±2-mm change pupillary diameter change in 3 patients (9.1 %), and >50 µm increase in OCT center point thickness in 7 patients (21.2 %). Three patients (15 %) reported clinically significant abnormalities in anterior segment biomicroscopy (grade 1 cataract [n = 2], grade 1 Visual Impairment [n = 1]). No permanent treatment discontinuations were associated with ophthalmologic findings changes. Twenty-four patients (72.7 %) reported ≥1 ocular all-causality treatment-emergent AE (TEAE); none required dose reduction or permanent discontinuation, but 2 required temporary dosing interruption. Although TEAEs and ophthalmologic findings may not have occurred concurrently, of 24 patients with ≥1 all-causality ocular TEAE, 18/24 (75.0 %) had ≥1 abnormal ophthalmologic finding and 6/24 (25 %) had none; and of 9 patients without an all-causality ocular TEAE, 4/9 (44.4 %) had ≥1 abnormal ophthalmologic finding and 5/9 (55.6 %) had none. Of the 18 patients with ≥1 abnormal ophthalmologic finding, 9 (50 %) had preexisting ocular conditions. CONCLUSION: During crizotinib treatment, ophthalmologic changes from baseline did not appear to be associated with patient-reported ocular TEAEs. Abnormal ophthalmologic findings occurred in the context of preexisting conditions for a number of patients. No ophthalmologic changes from baseline or ocular all-causality TEAEs required permanent treatment discontinuation.

A clinical trial of intradermal and intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibody responses to the inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have not been carefully characterized. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare antibody responses to intradermal vaccination in participants with moderate/severe AD with those in nonatopic participants. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the effect of route of administration, Staphylococcus aureus skin colonization, and disease severity on vaccine response. METHODS: This was an open-label study conducted in the 2012-2013 influenza season at 5 US clinical sites. A total of 360 participants with moderate/severe AD or nonatopic subjects were assessed for eligibility, 347 of whom received intradermal or intramuscular vaccination per label and were followed for 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants achieving seroprotection (hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titer ≥1:40 on day 28 after vaccination). RESULTS: Seroprotection rates for influenza B, H1N1, and H3N2 were not different (1) between participants with AD and nonatopic participants receiving intradermal vaccination and (2) between AD participants receiving intradermal and intramuscular vaccination. After intradermal, but not intramuscular, vaccination, participants with AD with S aureus colonization experienced (1) lower seroprotection and seroconversion rates and lower hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titer geometric mean fold increase against influenza B and (2) lower seroconversion rates against influenza H1N1 than noncolonized participants with AD. CONCLUSION: Participants with AD colonized with S aureus exhibited a reduced immune response to influenza vaccination compared with noncolonized participants after intradermal but not intramuscular vaccination. Because most patients with AD are colonized with S aureus, intramuscular influenza vaccination should be given preference in these patients.