Evaluating Response Trends of Chlormethine/Mechlorethamine Gel in Patients With Stage I-IIA Mycosis Fungoides: Analysis of Individual Patient Data From a Randomized Controlled Phase II Study to Facilitate Optimal Treatment Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Chlormethine (CL) gel was approved for treatment of mycosis fungoides based on the pivotal 201 trial (NCT00168064). Data visualization from individual patients is a powerful tool for discovery of hidden treatment trends. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of individual patient data from the pivotal trial to provide a more granular depiction of treatment and response changes over time, with an emphasis on end of treatment status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient response data were plotted over a 12-month treatment period to visualize patient experiences while using CL gel. Responder status was assigned according to end-of-treatment Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity (CAILS) score, and patients were classified as early (≤4 months) or late responders based on timing of response. Baseline and active treatment characteristics were compared between early and late responders, and baseline body surface area (BSA) was compared between responders and patients with stable or progressive disease. RESULTS: Data from 123 patients with baseline and postbaseline results were included. At the end of treatment, 64.2%/55.3% were responders, 30.9%/34.1% had stable disease, and 4.9%/10.6% had progressive disease by CAILS and mSWAT, respectively. Among patients who responded to treatment, 64.6% and 35.4% were early and late responders, respectively. Response pattern analysis also identified patients with an intermittent response or initial progressive disease. Baseline BSA was not associated with responder status. Late responders had longer treatment duration and higher postbaseline plaque elevation, while early responders had a higher frequency of dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Results presented here can facilitate optimal treatment experiences for patients starting CL gel.

Maintenance and Concomitant Therapy Use with Chlormethine Gel Among Patients with Stage IA/IB Mycosis Fungoides-Type Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (MF-CTCL): A Real-World Evidence Study.

INTRODUCTION: Chlormethine (CL) gel is a skin-directed therapy approved for treatment of stage IA/IB mycosis fungoides-type cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (MF-CTCL) in the USA. MF-CTCL has a chronic clinical course, requiring long-term maintenance therapy with one or more therapies. This analysis describes real-world patterns of maintenance therapy and use of concomitant therapy with CL gel among patients with stage IA/IB MF-CTCL. METHODS: In a US-based registry, MF-CTCL patients treated with CL gel were enrolled between 3/2015 and 10/2018 across 46 centers and followed for up to 2 years. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, CL gel treatment patterns, concomitant treatments, clinical response, and adverse events (AEs) were collected from medical records. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Of the 206 patients with stage IA/IB MF-CTCL, 58.7% were male, and average age was 60.7 years with 4.6 years since diagnosis. Topical steroids, phototherapy, and topical retinoids were used concomitantly with CL gel in 62.6%, 26.2%, and 6.3% of patients, respectively. Most concomitant therapies (up to 85%) were started before CL gel initiation and, in about half of the cases (up to 57%), were used concurrently for ≥ 12 months. Overall, 158 (76.7%) patients experienced partial response (PR) and 144 continued with maintenance therapy. After achieving PR, most patients (74.3%) kept the same maintenance therapy schedule, most commonly once daily. Of patients who had any skin-related AE (31.6%) or skin-related AEs associated with CL gel (28.2%), nearly half experienced CL gel treatment interruption and ~40% had a dosing reduction. The observed real-world treatment patterns were concordant with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that continuing CL gel maintenance therapy and combining treatments with CL gel are common practice in the real-world setting, with most maintained on a stable dosing schedule. Careful management of AEs may help patients maintain long-term optimal dosing with less treatment interruptions and dosing reductions.

The PROVe Study: US Real-World Experience with Chlormethine/Mechlorethamine Gel in Combination with Other Therapies for Patients with Mycosis Fungoides Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Chlormethine/mechlorethamine gel is a skin-directed therapy for patients with mycosis fungoides cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Currently, real-world data on chlormethine gel are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to analyze the effect of chlormethine gel in combination with other therapies on efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life in a real-world setting. METHODS: This prospective, observational study enrolled adult patients actively using chlormethine gel. Patients were monitored for up to 2 years during standard-of-care clinic visits. No specific visit schedules or clinical assessments, with the exception of patient-completed questionnaires, were mandated because of the expected variability in practice patterns. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with stage IA-IB disease receiving chlormethine + topical corticosteroids + other with ≥ 50% decrease in body surface area from baseline to 12 months. Response was assessed at each visit using by-time analysis, which investigates the trend to treatment response and allows assessment of response over time. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the Skindex-29 questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 298 patients were monitored. At 12 months post-treatment initiation, 44.4% (chlormethine + topical corticosteroids + other) and 45.1% (patients receiving chlormethine + other treatment) of efficacy-evaluable patients were responders. By-time analysis demonstrated that peak response occurred (chlormethine + other; 66.7%) at 18 months. There was a significant correlation between responder status and lower post-baseline Skindex-29 scores. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study confirmed that chlormethine gel is an important therapeutic option for patients with mycosis fungoides and contributes to reducing the severity of skin lesions and improving health-related quality of life.

Evaluating the Treatment Patterns of Chlormethine/Mechlorethamine Gel in Patients With Stage I-IIA Mycosis Fungoides: By-time Reanalysis of a Randomized Controlled Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal 201 Study investigated chlormethine/mechlorethamine gel treatment for patients with early stage disease mycosis fungoides and demonstrated the treatment was not inferior to chlormethine ointment. However, overall response rates do not provide information about response patterns. The study objective was to assess the value of by-time analysis of clinical response data in visualizing response over time. METHODS: This post hoc analysis re-evaluated chlormethine efficacy using a by-time approach that investigated the trend to treatment response and permitted assessment of response, both monthly between 1 and 6 months, and once every 2 months between 7 and 12 months, over the course of 1 year. In addition, very good partial response was redefined as a ≥ 75% response. RESULTS: By-time analyses of Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity (CAILS) and modified severity-weighted assessment tool (mSWAT) showed response rates at 1 month (respectively, 8.5% and 5.9%) that increased over time to peak at 10 months (78.9% and 54.4%). Early, intermittent, and late response patterns were observed. In total, 32.5% of patients experienced very good partial response over 2 consecutive visits, indicating that ∼ 33% of patients could expect to have very good to complete response within 1 year. CONCLUSION: By-time analysis for clinical response provides complementary information to traditional overall response rate data regarding response peak time and changes over time.

Efficacy of diphenhydramine vs desloratadine and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that diphenhydramine and desloratadine effectively relieve symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride, 5 mg of desloratadine, and placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. METHODS: In this 1-week, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR received 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride 3 times daily, 5 mg of desloratadine once daily, or placebo. Daily 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) (primary end point), total symptom scores, and individual symptom scores were evaluated. A global evaluation of response to treatment was conducted at 2 posttreatment visits. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline in 24-hour reflective TNSSs relative to the placebo response was 77.6% for the diphenhydramine group (P < .001) and 21.0% for the desloratadine group (P = .12). A TNSS between-treatment difference of -1.81 (46.7%; P < .001) was observed when comparing diphenhydramine with desloratadine. A similar between-treatment difference was observed for the 24-hour reflective total symptom score comparing diphenhydramine to desloratadine (-3.35; 45.5%; P < .001). Diphenhydramine provided clinically and statistically significant reductions vs placebo and desloratadine in all individual symptoms, including nasal congestion. Desloratadine had a tendency toward improvement compared with placebo for most individual symptom scores. However, a statistically significant result was reached only for sneezing (-0.27; 33.9%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Diphenhydramine, 50 mg, given for 1 week provided statistically significant and clinically superior improvements in symptoms compared with 5 mg of desloratadine in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. Somnolence occurred more frequently with diphenhydramine (22.1%) compared with desloratadine (4.5%) and placebo (3.4%).

Efficacy and safety of single and multiple doses of pseudoephedrine in the treatment of nasal congestion associated with common cold.

BACKGROUND: Pseudoephedrine (60 mg) is widely used as an oral decongestant taken in tablet or syrup formulations every 4-6 hours for the treatment of nasal congestion associated with common cold and allergy. However, there are relatively few studies in the literature that have used objective measures of nasal airway resistance (NAR) to assess the efficacy of pseudoephedrine, and most studies use only a single dose of medication. The present study has the aims of studying the safety and efficacy of a new pseudoephedrine formulation after single and multiple doses in patients with URTI. METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial conducted over three study days at a single center. Patients suffering from nasal congestion associated with common cold were recruited and total NAR was measured by the technique of posterior rhinomanometry. NAR and subjective scores of nasal congestion were measured at baseline and after dosing with study medication, every hour over a four-hour period on day 1 after a single dose, and on day 3 after multiple doses of medication. Subjective scores of congestion/stuffiness were also made as a summary score at the end of each day of treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-eight patients with nasal congestion associated with acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), mean age 20 years, were recruited to the study and received treatment. After a single dose on day 1 the pseudoephedrine group had a statistically significant lower area under the NAR curve than placebo (p = 0.006) for the primary efficacy variable area under the NAR curve from 0-3 hours (NAR AUC 0-3h), and similarly for the secondary efficacy variable NAR AUC 0-4h (p = 0.001). On day three after multiple doses, the pseudoephedrine group had a statistically significant lower NAR AUC 0-3h and AUC 0-4h than placebo (p < 0.001), On day 1, the pseudoephedrine group had significantly lower subjective scores for congestion than placebo visual analog scale (VAS) AUC 0-3h (p = 0.029) and similarly for VAS AUC 0-4h (p = 0.021). On day 3, the differences in subjective scores were not significantly different. The mean decrease from baseline of the summary score for congestion/stuffiness over the duration of the study was greater in the pseudoephedrine group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.016). On average, heart rate was between two and four beats per minute greater in the pseudoephedrine group compared to placebo. Five adverse events were reported in both treatment groups and these were deemed to be unrelated to treatment. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that pseudoephedrine is a safe and effective treatment for nasal congestion associated with URTI. The results from the laboratory study on day 1 demonstrate by both objective and subjective measures of nasal congestion that a single dose of 60 mg pseudoephedrine is superior to placebo treatment. Support for the decongestant efficacy of multiple doses of pseudoephedrine is provided by objective measures on day 3 and subjective measures made over three days, but not by the VAS scores on day 3.