Efficacy and safety study of targeted small-molecule drugs in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Targeted small-molecule drugs in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have attracted increasing attention from clinical investigators. However, there is still a lack of evidence on the difference in the efficacy and safety of different targeted small-molecule drugs. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of different targeted small-molecule drugs for SLE. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on targeted small-molecule drugs in the treatment of SLE in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched as of April 25, 2023. Risk of bias assessment was performed for included studies using the Cochrane's tool for evaluating the risk of bias. The primary outcome indicators were SRI-4 response, BICLA response, and adverse reaction. Because different doses and courses of treatment were used in the included studies, Bayesian network meta-regression was used to investigate the effect of different doses and courses of treatment on efficacy and safety. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included, involving 3,622 patients and 9 targeted small-molecule drugs. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, in terms of improving SRI-4, Deucravacitinib was significantly superior to that of Baricitinib (RR = 1.32, 95% CI (1.04, 1.68), P < 0.05). Deucravacitinib significantly outperformed the placebo in improving BICLA response (RR = 1.55, 95% CI (1.20, 2.02), P < 0.05). In terms of adverse reactions, targeted small-molecule drugs did not significantly increase the risk of adverse events as compared to placebo (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence obtained in this study, the differences in the efficacy of targeted small-molecule drugs were statistically significant as compared to placebo, but the difference in the safety was not statistically significant. The dose and the course of treatment had little impact on the effect of targeted small-molecule drugs. Deucravacitinib could significantly improve BICLA response and SRI-4 response without significantly increasing the risk of AEs. Therefore, Deucravacitinib is very likely to be the best intervention measure. Due to the small number of included studies, more high-quality clinical evidence is needed to further verify the efficacy and safety of targeted small-molecule drugs for SLE.

Efficacy and safety of venetoclax-based combination therapy for previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To explore the efficacy and safety of venetoclax-based combination therapy for older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing venetoclax plus hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) with mono-HMAs or LDAC. The random or fixed effects model was applied to the studies based on heterogeneity. Dichotomous data were summarized using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous variable data were reported as weighted mean differences (WMDs). RESULTS: Nine studies, including a total of 1232 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Thec complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete hematological recovery (CRi) rate of the venetoclax (Ven) + azacytidine (Aza) group was significantly greater than that of the Aza monotherapy group (RR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.85-3.15; P < 0.001). Similarly, the CR/CRi rate of the Ven + LDAC group was also significantly greater than that of the LDAC monotherapy group (RR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.58-4.17; P = 0.00). The same results were observed for OS among these groups. However, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was greater in the Ven + Aza group than in the Ven + Decitabine (Dec) or monotherapy Aza group (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; P = 0.006 and RR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.58-3.03; P < 0.001, respectively). In addition, the Ven + LDAC group had significantly greater rates of constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting than the LDAC monotherapy group, with RRs and CIs of 0.61 (95% CI 0.44-0.83, P = 0.002), 1.81 (95% CI 1.22-2.67, P = 0.003), 1.39 (95% CI 1.06-1.82, P = 0.016), and 1.80 (95% CI 1.19-2.72, P = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSION: Venetoclax combined with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC significantly improved the CR/CRi and OS of patients with previously untreated AML. However, venetoclax plus azacitidine or LDAC was more likely to lead to increased febrile neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity.

Higher infection risk for JAK inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib compared to subcutaneous biological DMARDs.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is usually treated with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and more recently, Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Randomized trials suggest similar infection risks for JAKi and bDMARDs, but real-world data are scarce. METHODS: From a nationally representative prescription database, adult RA patients starting a new JAKi or bDMARD between August 1st, 2018, and January 31st, 2021, were included. Prescriptions of antibiotic, antiviral or antifungal medication were used as proxy for infections. Infection incidence rates (IR) were compared between JAKi and bDMARDs and infection risks were estimated using multilevel Poisson regression adjusted for follow-up time and potential confounders and stratified for age < 65 and ≥ 65 years. RESULTS: In 14,989 patients, we identified 20,050 treatment episodes with either JAKi or bDMARDs. The infection IR was significantly higher in JAKi (48/100 patient years) compared bDMARDs (35/100 patient years, adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33). More herpes zoster infections were seen in JAKi compared to bDMARDs (adjusted IRR 2.65, 95% CI 1.94-3.60). No significant differences in infection IRs were found comparing JAKi baricitinib and tofacitinib. In older patients, infection IRs were higher, but IRRs were similar between age groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison to bDMARDs, JAKi are associated with a slightly higher infection risk and a higher risk of herpes zoster specifically. In older patients, infection IRs are higher but similar infection risks for JAKi and bDMARDs are observed. No differences in infection risk between tofacitinib and baricitinib were found. Key Points • Compared to bDMARDs, JAKi are associated with a slightly higher infection risk for all ages • An increased risk of herpes zoster in patients who use JAK inhibitors was confirmed • No significant differences in infection incidence were found between tofacitinib and baricitinib.

Vonoprazan causes symptomatic improvement in non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan therapy as compared to conventional proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or no vonoprazan for non-erosive esophagitis. METHODS: A thorough search was conducted across databases. The primary outcome was to determine the mean variance in the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) score after vonoprazan treatment. Secondary outcomes comprised alterations in the scores for epigastric pain and post-prandial distress, the proportion of patients displaying improvement, and the occurrence of adverse events. Pooled mean differences and relative risks were determined utilizing random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 1,944 articles were screened and nine of them were included. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the GERD score [mean difference: -3.88 (95 % CI: -5.48, -2.28), p < 0.01, i2=95 %]. As compared to PPI or no vonoprazan therapy, vonoprazan treatment led to a significant reduction in the epigastric pain score [mean difference: -3.02 (95 % CI: -5.41, -0.63), p = 0.01, i2=75 %] and post-prandial distress score [mean difference: -2.82 (95 % CI: -3.51, -2.12), p < 0.01, i2=0 %] (all moderate GRADE evidence). Vonoprazan therapy was found to be safe. CONCLUSION: Treatment with vonoprazan could significantly improve symptoms in patients with non-erosive esophagitis or non-erosive GERD.

A phase 3b study of venetoclax and azacitidine or decitabine in an outpatient setting in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Venetoclax, a highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor, combined with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine or decitabine, is approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) in patients who are ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. Previous clinical studies initiated venetoclax plus HMA in an inpatient setting owing to concerns of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This study (NCT03941964) evaluated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus HMA in a United States community-based outpatient setting in patients with ND AML (N = 60) who were treatment naïve for AML, ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy, had no evidence of spontaneous TLS at screening, and were deemed as appropriate candidates for outpatient initiation of venetoclax plus HMA by the investigator. Patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (75 mg/m2) or decitabine (20 mg/m2) for up to 6 cycles during the study. With a median time on study of 18.3 weeks, the best response rate of composite complete remission was 66.7%, and the overall post-baseline red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion independence rate was 55.0%, consistent with results of studies in which treatment was initiated in an inpatient setting. Key adverse events included nausea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and white blood cell count decrease of any grade (≥50% of patients). The observed safety profile was generally consistent with that of venetoclax plus HMA observed in inpatient AML studies. With close monitoring, 2 cases of TLS were identified, appropriately managed, and the patients were able to continue study treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration identification number is NCT03941964.

Vonoprazan-based therapies versus PPI-based therapies in patients with H. pylori infection: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA), vonoprazan-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (VAC), vonoprazan-based bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (VBQT), and PPI-based triple (PAC) or quadruple therapy (PBQT) for H. pylori infection with the consideration of duration of therapy and amoxicillin dose (H: high; L: low). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 15, 2023. The efficacy outcome was eradication rate, and safety outcomes included the rates of adverse events and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The pooled eradication rates were 82.8% for VA, 89.1% for VAC, and 91.8% for VBQT, which increased with the higher amoxicillin frequency of administration and extended duration of therapy within each regimen. There were no significant differences in eradication rate when comparing 7-VA versus 7-VAC and 14-VA versus 14-VAC. VA was at least comparable to PAC. The eradication rate did not differ significantly between 10-H-VA or 14-H-VA versus 14-PBQT. 7-L-VAC demonstrated higher eradication rate versus 7-PAC and comparable rate to 14-PAC. 14-VBQT showed higher eradication rates versus 14-PBQT. The adverse events rate was 19.3% for VA, 30.6% for VAC, and 38.4% for VBQT. VA had similar risk of adverse events versus VAC and significantly fewer adverse events compared to PBQT. The treatment discontinuation rate did not differ significantly between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The eradication rate of VBQT was the highest at above 90% followed by VAC and VA. VA was as effective as VAC and superior to PPI-based therapies with favorable safety, highlighting the potential of VA therapy as a promising alternative to traditional PPI-based therapies. VPZ-based triple or quadruple therapies was more effective than PPI-based therapies. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment regimen especially in the western countries.

Feasibility, safety, efficacy and potential scaling-up of sofosbuvir-based HCV treatment in Central and West Africa: (TAC ANRS 12311 trial).

Access to Hepatis C treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa is a clinical, public health and ethical concern. The multi-country open-label trial TAC ANRS 12311 allowed assessing the feasibility, safety, efficacy of a specific care model of HCV treatment and retreatment in patients with hepatitis C in Sub Saharan Africa. Between November 2015 and March 2017, with follow-up until mid 2019, treatment-naïve patients with HCV without decompensated cirrhosis or liver cancer were recruited to receive 12 week-treatment with either sofosbuvir + ribavirin (HCV genotype 2) or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (genotype 1 or 4) and retreatment with sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + voxilaprevir in case of virological failure. The primary outcome was sustained virological response at 12 weeks after end of treatment (SVR12). Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, safety and SVR12 in patients who were retreated due to non-response to first-line treatment. The model of care relied on both viral load assessment and educational sessions to increase patient awareness, adherence and health literacy. The study recruited 120 participants, 36 HIV-co-infected, and 14 cirrhotic. Only one patient discontinued treatment because of return to home country. Neither death nor severe adverse event occurred. SVR12 was reached in 107 patients (89%): (90%) in genotype 1 or 2, and 88% in GT-4. All retreated patients (n = 13) reached SVR12. HCV treatment is highly acceptable, safe and effective under this model of care. Implementation research is now needed to scale up point-of-care HCV testing and SVR assessment, along with community involvement in patient education, to achieve HCV elimination in Sub-Saharan Africa.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

A Comparative Study on Efficacy of Intraocular Pressure Lowering of Two Fixed-Dose Antiglaucoma Drug Combination Brinzolamide-Brimonidine Versus Latanoprost-Timolol in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of Brinzolamide-Brimonidine (BB) (1%+0.2%) with the gold standard Latanoprost-Timolol (LT) (0.005%+0.5%) in treating primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: A 1-year prospective study, spanning from May 2022 to May 2023, conducted at a tertiary eye-care hospital. Participants, aged 40-60, with a baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) >21 mm Hg, requiring a >30% reduction, were enrolled. Group A (n = 100) received BB, and Group B (n = 100) received LT. Outcomes were assessed at 1 month (IOP difference from baseline), 3 and 6 months (mean diurnal variations). Results: The mean age at presentation was 55.5 ± 4.5 years in Group A and 54.7 ± 4.2 years in Group B. At 1 month, Group A exhibited a mean IOP of 18.7 mm Hg, while Group B had 17.6 mm Hg, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.53). No significant diurnal variation was observed in either group (P = 0.07). Target pressure was achieved in 88% of patients in Group A and slightly higher at 92% in Group B. Moreover, no serious side effects were reported, and compliance was higher in Group B (98%) compared to Group A (96%). Conclusion: Although LT showed slightly better and sustained IOP reduction, the difference was not statistically significant. Both BB and LT demonstrated comparable outcomes for managing POAG and OHT.

[Safety and efficacy of 7-day administration of azacitidine and venetoclax combination therapy (7+7 therapy)].

Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) has a poor prognosis in patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The combination of azacitidine and venetoclax has been shown to have high overall efficiency and remission rates, even in patients ineligible for aggressive chemotherapy. However, myelosuppression is often prolonged after treatment, and infection can also occur. Severe myelosuppression is often addressed by dose titration, but specific dose titration methods have not been clarified. We used the standard induction therapy with azacitidine plus venetoclax, and if blasts decreased to 20% or less, switched to 7+7 therapy to shorten venetoclax to 7 days starting from the next cycle. In the 19 patients we treated (median age 80 years), response rate above MLFS was 100%, CR 57.9%, CRc (CR+CRi) 78.8%, median OS 693 days, median PFS 458 days, and median OS was not reached in previously untreated patients. This indicates that 7+7 is a highly effective and well-tolerated treatment.

Efficacy of Venetoclax and Azacitidine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Compared to Azacitidine Monotherapy: Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The combination of venetoclax (VEN) and azacitidine (AZA) (VEN+AZA) leads to higher complete remission rates and longer overall survival (OS) in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive combination chemotherapy. In practice, the doses of VEN and AZA are reduced at the attending physician's discretion to avoid adverse events; however, the impact of dose and duration reductions has not been fully clarified. We analyzed whether the efficacy was maintained with reduced VEN+AZA compared to AZA monotherapy in the real world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 33 patients were included; 17 (10 newly diagnosed, 7 primary refractory or relapsed) received VEN+AZA, and 16 (7 newly diagnosed, 9 primary refractory or relapsed) received AZA. We analyzed complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rates, OS, and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: CR/CRi were achieved in 7/17 (41.2%) and 11/17 (64.7%) patients in the VEN+AZA group and 0/15 (0%) and 2/15 (6.7%) patients in the AZA group, respectively. The CR/CRi rate was higher in the VEN+AZA group than in the AZA group (p=0.001). OS was longer in the VEN+AZA group than in the AZA group (p=0.03), with a median of 506 days [95% confidence interval (CI)=234-585 days] and 208 days (95% CI=52-343 days), respectively. CONCLUSION: The doses of the VEN+AZA combination were reduced at the attending physician's discretion, resulting in a higher CR/CRi rate and longer OS than AZA monotherapy and is considered useful for AML in the real world.

Recurrent acquired ocular toxoplasmosis associated with Kyrieleis plaques and documented allergy to sulfonamide-A treatment proposal for two rare conditions.

The aim of this study was to describe a case of a patient with ocular toxoplasmosis, which has resulted in Kyrieleis plaques formation (segmental periarteritis associated with severe inflammation) and later follow-up and alternative treatment due to documented allergy to sulfonamide. A 33-year-old Brazilian woman diagnosed with acute toxoplasmosis, initially treated with sulfonamide, developed a critical cutaneous rash. Cotrimoxazole was changed to clindamycin and pyrimethamine, and prednisone was started. The medication was maintained for 45 days. Four months later, she developed retinal lesions suggestive of toxoplasmosis with Kyrieleis plaques in the upper temporal vessels. Pyrimethamine, clindamycin, and prednisone were initiated until healing. She presented reactivation months later, and a suppressive treatment with pyrimethamine was instituted for one year. This is the first report to use the combination of clindamycin with pyrimethamine in the treatment and recurrence prophylaxis for OT in a documented allergy to sulfonamide.

The effect of concomitant beta-blocker use on survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors in the first line.

PURPOSE: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is one of the cornerstones of treatment in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Since RCC is a disease of advanced age and hypertension as a side effect of VEGF receptor inhibitors, beta-blocker use is common in these patients. We aimed to compare the treatment efficacy and survival results in case of concomitant use of these two drugs due to the inhibition of VEGF in beta-blockers. METHODS: A total of 121 patients with a diagnosis of mRCC who used sunitinib or pazopanib in first-line therapy were included in the study. These patients were divided into two groups as those using concomitant beta-blockers and those not using them. RESULT: The median overall survival (mOS) of the patient using sunitinib or pazopanib and concomitant beta-blocker was 47 (95% CI 29.0-65.0) months, and the mOS of those not using concomitant beta-blocker was 18 (95% CI 8.9-27.1) months (p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) of the patients using sunitinib or pazopanib and concomitant beta-blocker was 20.4 (95% CI 4.5-40.1) months, and the mPFS of those not using it was 11.4 (95% CI 5.9-16.9) months (p = 0.042). Concomitant beta-blocker use was found to be a good prognostic factor for OS in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.029). In the multivariate analysis, concomitant beta-blocker use had a trend towards statistical significance for PFS (p = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of betablockers with sunitinib or pazopanib is associated with longer overall survial and progression free survival.

The efficacy and safety of venetoclax combined with demethylating agents in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents in elderly with acute myeloid leukemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search identified related studies from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Overall complete remission (CR) and overall response rate (ORR) were applied to evaluate the efficacy of venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents in elderly with acute myeloid leukemia, and incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events were used to evaluate the safety. RESULTS: 10 studies, including a total of 930 patients, were identified in our study and analyzed using the random-effects model. Meta-analysis showed the pooled overall CR rate of 70% (95% CI: 63-77%), the pooled ORR rate of 53% (95% CI: 39-67%), and the median overall survival ranged from 7.7 to 16.9 months. A total of 6 studies reported related adverse events, mainly including thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, and pneumonia. The pooled incidence of overall adverse events was 30% (95% CI: 22-38%), and all adverse events were tolerable and resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of venetoclax and demethylating drugs has a good therapeutic effect on elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia, but it also induces some adverse events. Although this therapy has a small impact on the quality of life, further attention is still needed to reduce the occurrence of such adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab for BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of the Japanese Expanded Access Program.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 BEACON CRC study demonstrated the survival benefits of encorafenib and cetuximab, with or without binimetinib (the BEACON triplet or doublet regimen), for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This expanded access program (EAP) and subsequent follow-up study assessed the efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EAP was an open-label, single-arm study including Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC whose disease progressed after 1 to 2 prior regimens. The patients received the BEACON triplet regimen with 28-day cycles. The subsequent follow-up study assessed the survival outcomes following EAP completion. Safety was assessed only during the EAP. RESULTS: Among the 86 enrolled patients, 81 received the BEACON triplet regimen. The objective response rate and median progression-free survival were 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0%-39.1%) and 5.26 (95% CI, 4.14-5.52) months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events and treatment-related adverse events occurred in 43.2% and 28.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were observed during the EAP. Among 58 patients with confirmed survival at EAP completion, 57 were included in the follow-up study. With a median observation period of 9.17 months through the EAP and follow-up study, the median overall survival was 10.38 (95% CI, 9.00-16.16) months. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC were consistent with those reported in the BEACON CRC trial, supporting its use as a standard treatment for pretreated patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Phase I/II Study of Combined BCL-xL and MEK Inhibition with Navitoclax and Trametinib in KRAS or NRAS Mutant Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: MEK inhibitors (MEKi) lack monotherapy efficacy in most RAS-mutant cancers. BCL-xL is an anti-apoptotic protein identified by a synthetic lethal shRNA screen as a key suppressor of apoptotic response to MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a dose escalation study (NCT02079740) of the BCL-xL inhibitor navitoclax and MEKi trametinib in patients with RAS-mutant tumors with expansion cohorts for: pancreatic, gynecologic (GYN), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other cancers harboring KRAS/NRAS mutations. Paired pretreatment and day 15 tumor biopsies and serial cell-free (cf)DNA were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients initiated treatment, with 38 in dose escalation. Fifty-eight percent had ≥3 prior therapies. A total of 15 patients (17%) had colorectal cancer, 19 (11%) pancreatic, 15 (17%) NSCLC, and 32 (35%) GYN cancers. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was established as trametinib 2 mg daily days 1 to 14 and navitoclax 250 mg daily days 1 to 28 of each cycle. Most common adverse events included diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, increased AST/ALT, and acneiform rash. At RP2D, 8 of 49 (16%) evaluable patients achieved partial response (PR). Disease-specific differences in efficacy were noted. In patients with GYN at the RP2D, 7 of 21 (33%) achieved a PR and median duration of response 8.2 months. No PRs occurred in patients with colorectal cancer, NSCLC, or pancreatic cancer. MAPK pathway inhibition was observed in on-treatment tumor biopsies. Reductions in KRAS/NRAS mutation levels in cfDNA correlated with clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Navitoclax in combination with trametinib was tolerable. Durable clinical responses were observed in patients with RAS-mutant GYN cancers, warranting further evaluation in this population.

A real-world pharmacovigilance study of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) events for Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) single and its combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are targeted treatments for B-cell tumors but have significant side effects. This study assesses and contrasts the side effects of BTKis alone and its four combination therapies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to analyze the data on three BTKis monotherapies and combinations of ibrutinib with rituximab, obinutuzumab, venetoclax, and lenalidomide in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database up to December 2022. RESULTS: We analyzed the top 20 PTs for each treatment regimen. In monotherapies, atrial fibrillation (ROR (95% CI): 9.88 (9.47-10.32)) in zanubrutinib and rash (6.97 (5.42-8.98)) in acalabrutinib had higher associations. In combinations, infection (6.86 (6.11-7.70)), atrial fibrillation (27.96 (22.61-34.58)) and myelosuppression (10.09 (8.89-11.46)) were vital signals when ibrutinib was combined with obinutuzumab, and pyrexia (4.22 (2.57-6.93)) had a high signal value when combined with lenalidomide. Hemorrhage had a lower signal value when combined with venetoclax compared to ibrutinib alone (2.50 (2.18-2.87) vs 3.60 (3.52-3.68)). CONCLUSIONS: The ibrutinib-obinutuzumab combo has the highest risk of infection, atrial fibrillation, and myelosuppression, and the ibrutinib-lenalidomide combo has the highest risk of pyrexia. However, the ibrutinib-venetoclax combo has a lower risk of hemorrhage than monotherapy.