Selpercatinib and capmatinib combination promotes sustained complete response in novel ISOC1-RET fusion lung cancer after resistance to RET inhibitor via MET amplification: Case Report.

RET fusions occur in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancer. Selpercatinib and pralsetinib are selective RET inhibitors with significant improvement of outcome in patients with tumor harboring RET fusion; however, resistance mechanisms appear frequently, mainly driven by MAPK pathway bypass, secondary RET mutations, or in 5% via MET amplification. Co-inhibition of RET and MET is a compelling strategy for overcoming MET-dependent resistance to RET inhibitors and potentially other inhibitors. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a novel ISOC1-RET fusion lung cancer with a durable complete response to selpercatinib, with resistance via MET amplification, which was overcome by the successful combination of selpercatinib and capmatinib.

Enzyme replacement therapy for Anderson-Fabry disease.

BACKGROUND: Anderson-Fabry disease is an X-linked defect of glycosphingolipid metabolism. Progressive renal insufficiency is a major source of morbidity, additional complications result from cardio- and cerebro-vascular involvement. Survival is reduced among affected males and symptomatic female carriers.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010, and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy compared to other interventions, placebo or no interventions, for treating Anderson-Fabry disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register (date of the most recent search: 08 July 2016). We also searched 'Clinical Trials' on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS (date of the most recent search: 24 September 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of agalsidase alfa or beta in participants diagnosed with Anderson-Fabry disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials comparing either agalsidase alfa or beta in 351 participants fulfilled the selection criteria.Both trials comparing agalsidase alfa to placebo reported on globotriaosylceramide concentration in plasma and tissue; aggregate results were non-significant. One trial reported pain scores measured by the Brief Pain Inventory severity, there was a statistically significant improvement for participants receiving treatment at up to three months, mean difference -2.10 (95% confidence interval -3.79 to -0.41; at up to five months, mean difference -1.90 (95% confidence interval -3.65 to -0.15); and at up to six months, mean difference -2.00 (95% confidence interval -3.66 to -0.34). There was a significant difference in the Brief Pain Inventory pain-related quality of life at over five months and up to six months, mean difference -2.10 (95% confidence interval -3.92 to -0.28) but not at other time points. Death was not an outcome in either of the trials.One of the three trials comparing agalsidase beta to placebo reported on globotriaosylceramide concentration in plasma and tissue and showed significant improvement: kidney, mean difference -1.70 (95% confidence interval -2.09 to -1.31); heart, mean difference -0.90 (95% confidence interval -1.18 to -0.62); and composite results (renal, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications and death), mean difference -4.80 (95% confidence interval -5.45 to -4.15). There was no significant difference between groups for death; no trials reported on pain.Only two trials compared agalsidase alfa to agalsidase beta. One of them showed no significant difference between the groups regarding adverse events, risk ratio 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 1.59), or any serious adverse events; risk ratio 0.30; (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.57).Two trials compared different dosing schedules of agalsidase alfa. One of them involved three different doses (0.2 mg/kg every two weeks; 0.1 mg/kg weekly and; 0.2 mg/kg weekly), the other trial evaluated two further doses to the dosage schedules: 0.4 mg/kg every week and every other week. Both trials failed to show significant differences with various dosing schedules on globotriaosylceramide levels. No significant differences were found among the schedules for the primary efficacy outcome of self-assessed health state, or for pain scores.One trial comparing agalsidase alfa to agalsidase beta showed no significant difference for any adverse events such as dyspnoea and hypertension.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally unclear for the random sequence generation and allocation concealment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials comparing enzyme replacement therapy to placebo show significant improvement with enzyme replacement therapy in regard to microvascular endothelial deposits of globotriaosylceramide and in pain-related quality of life. There is, however, no evidence identifying if the alfa or beta form is superior or the optimal dose or frequency of enzyme replacement therapy. With regards to safety, adverse events (i.e., rigors, fever) were more significant in the agalsidase beta as compared to placebo. The long-term influence of enzyme replacement therapy on risk of morbidity and mortality related to Anderson-Fabry disease remains to be established. This review highlights the need for continued research into the use of enzyme replacement therapy for Anderson-Fabry disease.

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE:We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification.METHOD:A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75).RESULTS:A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy.CONCLUSIONS:Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.