A phase 2 study of a longitudinal multidimensional rehabilitation program for allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation patients.

ABSTRACT: Allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (alloBMT) is a curative treatment for blood cancers associated with various treatment-related adverse events and morbidities for which rehabilitation programs are currently limited. A phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of CaRE-4-alloBMT, a longitudinal, multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program for patients undergoing alloBMT. The primary outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the methods. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative interviews. Secondary clinical outcomes were collected through questionnaires and physiological assessments at 4 time points. A total of 80 participants were recruited and randomized. Recruitment (72%) and retention (70%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the intervention. Adherence was suboptimal, most notably educational module completion (22.7%). Treatment effect sizes of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-1.21; 30-second sit-to-stand test) and 0.46 (95% CI, -0.17 to 1.09; 36-Item Short Form Survey) were observed in favor of the intervention. The results appear promising; however, the findings are limited by missing data owing to attrition. Modifications will be required to refine the program and inform a phase 3 RCT. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT04966156.

A longitudinal multidimensional rehabilitation program for patients undergoing allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (CaRE-4-alloBMT): Protocol for a phase II feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (alloBMT) is a curative treatment for blood cancers associated with various treatment-related adverse events and morbidities. Current rehabilitation programs are limited for patients undergoing alloBMT and research is urgently needed to test the acceptability and effectiveness of these programs. In response, we developed a 6-month multidimensional longitudinal rehabilitation program that spans from pre transplant to 3 months post transplant discharge (CaRE-4-alloBMT). METHODS: This study is a phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in patients undergoing alloBMT. A total of 80 patients stratified by frailty score will be randomized to receive usual care (n = 40) or CaRE-4-alloBMT plus usual care (n = 40). The CaRE-4-alloBMT program includes individualized exercise prescriptions, access to online education through a dedicated self-management platform, wearable technology for remote monitoring, and remote tailored clinical support. Feasibility will be assessed by examining the recruitment and retention rates and adherence to the intervention. Safety events will be monitored. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed through qualitative interviews. Secondary clinical outcomes will be collected through questionnaires and physiological assessments at baseline (T0, 2-6 weeks pre-transplant), transplant hospital admission (T1), hospital discharge (T2), and 3 months post-discharge (T3). CONCLUSION: This pilot RCT study will determine the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study design and will inform full-scale RCT planning.

Defibrotide plus best standard of care compared with best standard of care alone for the prevention of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (HARMONY): a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, also known as veno-occlusive disease, is a potentially life-threatening complication of haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We aimed to compare defibrotide prophylaxis plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome prevention after HSCT. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 104 centres in 14 countries. Patients who were at least 1 month old, were scheduled to receive allogeneic HSCT (adult [aged >16 years] or paediatric [aged >1 month to ≤16 years] patients) or autologous HSCT (paediatric patients only), and were at high risk or very high risk of developing sinusoidal obstruction syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system to receive intravenous defibrotide 25 mg/kg per day (four equal doses [6·25 mg/kg per dose]) and best supportive care (determined by individual institutional guidelines; defibrotide prophylaxis group) or best supportive care only (best supportive care group). Randomisation was stratified by sinusoidal obstruction syndrome risk, age, and country. The primary endpoint, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome-free survival at day 30 after HSCT, was assessed by an independent Endpoint Adjudication Committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received protocol treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851407. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2017, and Oct 20, 2020, 372 patients (172 [46%] women and 200 [54%] men; median age 14·0 years [IQR 4·0-41·0] were randomly assigned to the defibrotide prophylaxis group (n=190) or best supportive care group (n=182; ITT population). On the basis of recommendations from the Independent Data Monitoring Committee following completion of the planned interim analysis in the first 280 recruited patients on April 29, 2020, enrolment was prematurely stopped for presumed futility. At the final analysis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome-free survival by day 30 after HSCT was 67% (95% CI 58-74) in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and 73% (62-80) in the best supportive care group (HR 1·27 [95% CI 0·84-1·93]; p=0·85). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups during the randomised prophylaxis phase; most treatment-emergent adverse events were related to the transplantation rather than to study drug. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were stomatitis (grade 3, 52 [29%] of 181 patients in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and 56 [32%] of 174 patients in the best supportive care group; grade 4, two [1%] in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and two [1%] in the best supportive care group) and febrile neutropaenia (grade 3, 51 [28%] in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and 52 [30%] in the best supportive care group; grade 4, no patients in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and three [2%] in the best supportive care group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74 (41%) of 181 patients in the defibrotide prophylaxis group and 61 (35%) of 174 patients in the best supportive care group. In the rescue phase, when patients in both treatment groups received defibrotide as rescue treatment, fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred in one (4%) of 25 patients in the defibrotide prophylaxis group (intracranial haemorrhage) and one (3%) of 31 patients in the best supportive care group (sinusoidal obstruction syndrome). INTERPRETATION: Defibrotide did not show a benefit in the prophylaxis of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome. Additional studies of carefully selected patients at high risk of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome after HSCT are warranted. FUNDING: Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Feasibility and acceptability of a group-mediated exercise intervention for gynecological cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Examine feasibility and acceptability of a group-mediated cognitive-behavioral (GMCB) intervention targeting planned, self-managed physical activity (PA). DESIGN: Sequential mixed methods, single arm pre-/post-test design with a 4-week follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Post-treatment gynecologic cancer survivors. METHODS: Participants attended 8 weekly facilitator-led group sessions and completed assessments at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment rate, retention rate, capture of outcomes, intervention usability and intervention fidelity. Acceptability was examined via qualitative interviews. Preliminary estimates of intervention effectiveness (PA, PA social cognitions and sleep) were collected. FINDINGS: 355 participants were approached and 38 consented. Twenty took part in the study and 17 (85%) completed the intervention. Thematic content analysis revealed positive group experiences. Cognitive-behavioral strategies were beneficial. Goal-setting and shared cancer recovery experience facilitated connection among group members. IMPLICATIONS: Program acceptability was high among a diverse sample of gynecologic cancer survivors and delivery of the program is feasible to this group of gynecologic cancer survivors. Recruitment challenges were present but study retention was high.

Prehabilitation and acute postoperative physical activity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a secondary analysis from an RCT.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity via early mobilization after surgery is recommended to help reduce the risk of postoperative adverse effects and to improve recovery. We explored whether prehabilitation is associated with differences in physical activity during the postoperative inpatient stay and the week after discharge in men undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS: This study was a pre-planned secondary analysis of a larger randomized controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation versus control for men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Twenty-one participants in both the prehabilitation and control groups wore accelerometers from postoperative day 1 until 7 days after discharge. Mean physical activity (minutes) during postoperative day 1 (inpatient) and 1 week following hospital discharge (outpatient) were estimated using ANCOVA. Pearson's correlation coefficients were conducted for mean in- an outpatient physical activity with length of stay and changes in 6-min walk test (6MWT) over the course of the prehabilitation period. RESULTS: Nineteen participants in each group provided usable accelerometry data for analysis. Inpatient physical activity of light or greater activity during postoperative day 1 for prehabilitation and control groups were 442.5 ± 40.2 and 324.0 ± 40.2 min, respectively (∆ = 117.5 ± 57.8 min, 95%CI [0.04, 235.0]). During the outpatient period, mean daily physical activity was 448.4 ± 31.2 and 491.42 ± 31.2 min for prehabilitation and control participants, respectively (∆ = 42.6 ± 44.9 min; 95% CI [- 134.0, 48.7]). There were no correlations between in- or outpatient physical activity and preoperative changes in 6MWT or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometry-based measurement of physical activity in the acute postoperative period is feasible in older men undergoing abdominal surgery. Prehabilitation may be associated with increased inpatient physical activity; however, larger and longer studies are needed to elucidate any associated effects on clinical and patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02036684 registered January 15, 2014.