Safety and activity of anti-mesothelin antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine in combination with pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: multicenter, phase Ib dose escalation and expansion study.

OBJECTIVES: Anetumab ravtansine is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a fully human anti-mesothelin monoclonal antibody conjugated to cytotoxic maytansinoid tubulin inhibitor DM4. Mesothelin is highly expressed in ovarian cancer. This phase Ib study determines the safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity of anetumab ravtansine and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in mesothelin-expressing platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Anetumab ravtansine (5.5 or 6.5 mg/kg) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m2) were administered intravenously every 3 weeks to 65 patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer. Mesothelin expression was assessed by central immunohistochemistry. Adverse events, tumor response (RECIST 1.1), and progression-free survival were determined. Biomarker samples were assessed by ELISA and next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: In dose escalation, nine patients received anetumab ravtansine across two doses (5.5 or 6.5 mg/kg). The maximum tolerated dose of anetumab ravtansine was 6.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. In dose expansion, 56 patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (47.7%), decreased appetite (43.1%), fatigue (38.5%), diarrhea (32.3%), and corneal disorder (29.2%). In all treated patients the objective response rate was 27.7% (95% CI 17.3% to 40.2%), including one complete (1.5%) and 17 partial responses (26.2%), with median duration of response of 7.6 (95% CI 3.3 to 10.2) months and median progression-free survival of 5.0 (95% CI 3.2 to 6.0) months. In an exploratory analysis of a sub-set of patients (n=19) with high mesothelin expression who received ≤3 prior lines of systemic therapy, the objective response rate was 42.1% (95% CI 20.3% to 66.5%) with a median duration of response of 8.3 (95% CI 4.1 to 12.0) months and median progression-free survival of 8.5 (95% CI 4.0 to 11.4) months. CONCLUSIONS: Anetumab ravtansine and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin showed tolerability and promising clinical activity. These results established the dose schedule and the mesothelin-positive target population of this combination for a phase III study in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02751918.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

Race-related disparities in 5-year cognitive level and change in untrained ACTIVE participants.

OBJECTIVE: The current study examined a 5-year cognitive change in untrained African American and White participants from the Advanced Cognitive Training in Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) study. METHOD: Five-year trajectories of memory, reasoning, visual processing speed/useful field of view, digit-symbol substitution, and vocabulary were investigated. Education, health, gender, age, and retest/practice effects were controlled for, and a missing data pattern mixture approach was used to adjust for dropout effects. RESULTS: After considering age, education, health, and gender, being African American uniquely explained 2% to 7% of the variance in cognitive performance. There were virtually no significant race differences in the rates of change. DISCUSSION: Race-related results in the current study are consistent with previous research suggesting that social advantage factors such as education have a stronger influence on the level of performance than the rate of change. The small remaining effects of being African American on performance levels likely reflect uncontrolled variation in factors like literacy and financial advantage.

Effect of memory impairment on training outcomes in ACTIVE.

Cognitive training improves mental abilities in older adults, but the trainability of persons with memory impairment is unclear. We conducted a subgroup analysis of subjects in the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) trial to examine this issue. ACTIVE enrolled 2802 non-demented, community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older and randomly assigned them to one of four groups: Memory training, reasoning training, speed-of-processing training, or no-contact control. For this study, participants were defined as memory-impaired if baseline Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) sum recall score was 1.5 SD or more below predicted AVLT sum recall score from a regression-derived formula using age, education, ethnicity, and vocabulary from all subjects at baseline. Assessments were taken at baseline (BL), post-test, first annual (A1), and second annual (A2) follow-up. One hundred and ninety-three subjects were defined as memory-impaired and 2580 were memory-normal. Training gain as a function memory status (impaired vs. normal) was compared in a mixed effects model. Results indicated that memory-impaired participants failed to benefit from Memory training but did show normal training gains after reasoning and speed training. Memory function appears to mediate response to structured cognitive interventions in older adults.

Clinical pattern of zileuton-associated liver injury: results of a 12-month study in patients with chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Zileuton is a 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor approved by the US FDA in 1996 for the treatment of asthma in adults and children. During phase II/III clinical trials, zileuton was generally well tolerated, although elevations in ALT and AST levels were noted in some patients, and a single treated patient developed hepatocellular jaundice. To more fully characterise the hepatic effects of zileuton, and to establish appropriate monitoring guidelines, a 12-month open-label, safety surveillance study was conducted prior to FDA approval. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 2458 patients with asthma received zileuton 600mg four times daily in addition to usual asthma care, and 489 patients were treated with usual asthma care only. All patients had their liver biochemistry checked monthly for the first 5 months, and at months 7, 10 and 12 thereafter. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients (4.4%) receiving zileuton treatment had elevations in ALT levels to > or =3 x the upper limit of normal (ULN), including 31 patients (1.3%) who had levels elevated to > or =8 x ULN, compared with 5 of 480 patients in the usual care alone group (1.0%) who had levels elevated to > or =3 x ULN, of whom 1 (0.2%) had levels elevated to > or =8 x ULN. Elevations in ALT levels were generally not associated with increases in alkaline phosphatase and/or total bilirubin levels. Therefore, the hepatic injury was predominantly hepatocellular. The majority of elevations in ALT level to > or =3 x ULN (64.2%) in the zileuton-treated group occurred within the first 3 months of treatment. There was no correlation between the time of onset of ALT level elevation and the height of the peak ALT level observed. There was no overall difference in the occurrence of elevations in ALT level to > or =3 x ULN between men (4.5%) and women (4.7%), but more women than men experienced an ALT level > or =8 x ULN (1.8% vs 0.5%). Women aged > or =65 years appeared to be at higher risk of elevated ALT levels than those aged <65 years (a rate of 10.1% compared with 4.1%). Patients who experienced ALT levels of > or =3 x ULN but <5 x ULN were allowed to remain on treatment and 52.5% of these patients were able to continue zileuton therapy and experienced resolution of the elevation (a reduction in level to <2 x ULN). In each of the patients who discontinued treatment because of elevated ALT levels, the ALT level returned towards baseline, with a mean time to resolution (defined as a reduction in levels to <2 x ULN) of 4 weeks. No patient in this study developed clinically apparent jaundice or liver failure. Two patients (0.1%) experienced total bilirubin levels > or =1.5 x ULN in association with serum ALT levels exceeding 3 x ULN. CONCLUSIONS: This study established that liver chemistry monitoring is most effective in detecting elevation of ALT levels during the first 3 months of zileuton therapy and that with appropriate monitoring the risk of irreversible liver injury appears to be low.

The impact of publicly funded managed care on adolescent substance abuse treatment outcomes.

This study compares the 12-month changes in substance use following admission to substance abuse treatment in Massachusetts between adolescents enrolled in Medicaid managed care and other publicly funded adolescents. Two hundred and fifty-five adolescents were interviewed as they entered substance abuse treatment and at 6 and 12 month follow-ups. Medicaid enrollment data were used to determine the managed care enrollment status. One hundred forty two (56%) adolescents were in the managed care group and 113 (44%) comprise the comparison group. Substance use outcomes include a count of negative consequences of substance use, days of alcohol use, days of cannabis use, and days of any substance use in the previous 30 days. Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess change with time of measurement and managed care status as main effects and the interaction of time and managed care included to measure differences between the groups over time. Although several changes across time were detected for all four outcomes, we found no evidence of an impact of managed care for any of the outcomes. The results of our study do not support the fears that behavioral managed care, by imposing limits on services provided, would substantially reduce the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment for adolescents. At the same time, the results do not support those who believe that the continuity of care and improved resource utilization claimed for managed care would improve outcomes.

Access to services: multiple perspectives from adults with substance abuse disorders in Massachusetts.

This paper describes how 267 Massachusetts adult substance abuse consumers rated the substance abuse counseling they have received, their access to behavioral health care, and their overall experiences with their health plan or free care. This perspective is supplemented with information from administrative data on type of care received immediately after the baseline interview, including use of wraparound services while in treatment. We hypothesized that consumers in a carve-out behavioral health plan would view their care more favorably because they had a payment source for both substance abuse and mental health care. This hypothesis was confirmed. However, it is access to Medicaid insurance, not involvement of managed care, that is associated with greater access and higher consumer ratings of care.

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.

OBJECTIVES: To review current practice in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological research and to identify limitations. DESIGN: Examination of articles published in January 2001 that investigated associations between risk factors/exposure variables and disease events/measures in individuals. SETTING: Eligible English language journals including all major epidemiological journals, all major general medical journals, and the two leading journals in cardiovascular disease and cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Each article was evaluated with a standard proforma. RESULTS: We found 73 articles in observational epidemiology; most were either cohort or case-control studies. Most studies looked at cancer and cardiovascular disease, even after we excluded specialty journals. Quantitative exposure variables predominated, which were mostly analysed as ordered categories but with little consistency or explanation regarding choice of categories. Sample selection, participant refusal, and data quality received insufficient attention in many articles. Statistical analyses commonly used odds ratios (38 articles) and hazard/rate ratios (23), with some inconsistent use of terminology. Confidence intervals were reported in most studies (68), though use of P values was less common (38). Few articles explained their choice of confounding variables; many performed subgroup analyses claiming an effect modifier, though interaction tests were rare. Several investigated multiple associations between exposure and outcome, increasing the likelihood of false positive claims. There was evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: This survey raises concerns regarding inadequacies in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological publications in mainstream journals.

Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems.

Clinical trial investigators often record a great deal of baseline data on each patient at randomization. When reporting the trial's findings such baseline data can be used for (i) subgroup analyses which explore whether there is evidence that the treatment difference depends on certain patient characteristics, (ii) covariate-adjusted analyses which aim to refine the analysis of the overall treatment difference by taking account of the fact that some baseline characteristics are related to outcome and may be unbalanced between treatment groups, and (iii) baseline comparisons which compare the baseline characteristics of patients in each treatment group for any possible (unlucky) differences. This paper examines how these issues are currently tackled in the medical journals, based on a recent survey of 50 trial reports in four major journals. The statistical ramifications are explored, major problems are highlighted and recommendations for future practice are proposed. Key issues include: the overuse and overinterpretation of subgroup analyses; the underuse of appropriate statistical tests for interaction; inconsistencies in the use of covariate-adjustment; the lack of clear guidelines on covariate selection; the overuse of baseline comparisons in some studies; the misuses of significance tests for baseline comparability, and the need for trials to have a predefined statistical analysis plan for all these uses of baseline data.