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.

Maribavir for treatment of cytomegalovirus infection in a liver-transplanted patient.

Cytomegalovirus infection (CMV) can be fatal for organ transplant recipients as shown in this case report. Maribavir is a recently approved drug, which can be used for therapy-refractory CMV infection or when other treatment options cannot be used. The patient in this case report was a CMV-infected liver transplant recipient, who developed a severe erythema and high CMV DNA during valganciclovir therapy. Toxic epidermal necrolysis was suspected. The patient was treated with maribavir, and both CMV DNA and the skin normalised. This case illustrates that maribavir is a useful alternative to other antiviral drugs for CMV infection.

CandeSpartan Study: Candesartan Spanish Response-prediction and Tolerability study in migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Effectiveness of candesartan in migraine prevention is supported by two randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of candesartan in the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: Observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. The 50%, 75% and 30% responder rates, between weeks 8-12 and 20-24, were compared with the baseline. Treatment emergent adverse effects were systematically evaluated. Response predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included, 79.1% females, aged 39.5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 26.3-50.3), with chronic migraine (43.0%), medication overuse headache (55.8%) and a median of two (inter-quartile range: 0.75-3) prior preventive treatments. At baseline patients had 14 (10-24) headache and 8 (5-11) migraine days per month. The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 40%, 34.9% and 15.1% between weeks 8-12, and 48.8%, 36%, and 18.6% between weeks 20-24. Adverse effects were reported by 30 (34.9%) and 13 (15.1%) patients between weeks 0-12 and 12-24, leading to discontinuation in 15 (17.4%) patients. Chronic migraine, depression, headache days per month, medication overuse headache, and daily headache at baseline predicted the response between weeks 20-24. CONCLUSION: Candesartan effectiveness and tolerability in migraine prevention was in line with the clinical trials' efficacy.Trial registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04138316).

Predicting drug-drug interactions in breast cancer patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors and forward planning.

INTRODUCTION: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors are cornerstones in the treatment of Hormone Receptor (HR) positive and Human Epidermal Growth factor (HER2) negative metastatic breast cancer. Given their widespread use in the metastatic setting and emerging use in the adjuvant setting, studying drug-drug interactions (DDI) of these medications is of utmost importance. AREAS COVERED: This review provides key background information on the CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib. We discuss drug-drug interactions including those with proton pump inhibitors as well as CYP3A substrates, inhibitors, and inducers. We describe the effect of these drugs on membrane transporters and their substrates as well as those drugs that increase risk of CDK4/6 toxicities. Finally, we explore future directions for strategies to minimize drug-drug interactions. EXPERT OPINION: It is crucial to be mindful of medications that may interfere with drug absorption, such as proton pump inhibitors, as well as those that interfere with drug metabolism, such as CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers. Additionally, special consideration should be given to populations at higher risk for polypharmacy, such as older patients with greater comorbidities. These interactions and patient characteristics should be considered when developing individual treatment plans with CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Veliparib­Induced Toxicity in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta­Analysis.

In this study, we investigate the veliparib­induced toxicity in cancer patients. Databases were searched for RCTs treated with veliparib. We found veliparib could increase the risk of hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities. Anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and nausea were the most common toxicities. Patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tumors tend to have a higher risk of high-grade neutropenia; patients in the first-line setting tend to have a higher risk of high-grade anemia and neutropenia than those in the ≥ second line setting. Patients receiving higher dosage of veliparib tend to have a higher risk of all-grade anemia. Veliparib could also increase the risk of insomnia, myalgia, pneumonia, dyspnea, hyponatremia, and fatigue.

Response Rate and Molecular Correlates to Encorafenib and Binimetinib in BRAF-V600E Mutant High-Grade Glioma.

PURPOSE: Although fewer than 5% of high-grade gliomas (HGG) are BRAF-V600E mutated, these tumors are notable as BRAF-targeted therapy shows efficacy for some populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate response to the combination of encorafenib with binimetinib in adults with recurrent BRAF-V600-mutated HGG. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase 2, open-label, Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC) trial (NCT03973918), encorafenib and binimetinib were administered at their FDA-approved doses continuously in 28-day cycles. Eligible patients were required to have HGG or glioblastoma with a BRAF-V600E alteration that was recurrent following at least one line of therapy, including radiotherapy. RESULTS: Five patients enrolled between January 2020 and administrative termination in November 2021 (due to closure of the ABTC). Enrolled patients received treatment for 2 to 40 months; currently one patient remains on treatment. Centrally determined radiographic response rate was 60%, with one complete response and two partial responses. Methylation profiling revealed that all tumors cluster most closely with anaplastic pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA). Transcriptional profile for MAPK-response signature was similar across all tumors at baseline and did not correlate with response in this small population. Circulating tumor DNA measured in plasma samples before treatment, during response, and upon progression showed feasibility of detection for the BRAF-V600E alteration. No new safety signal was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Encorafenib and binimetinib exhibit positive tumor responses in patients with recurrent BRAF-V600E mutant HGG in this small series, warranting therapeutic consideration. Although toxicity remains a concern for BRAF-targeted therapies, no new safety signal was observed in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of selumetinib in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and inoperable plexiform neurofibromas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The approval of selumetinib in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1(NF1) and inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PN) has reshaped the landscape of clinical management of the disease, and further comprehensive evaluation of the drug's efficacy and safety is needed. METHODS: Original articles reporting on the efficacy and safety of elumetinib in patients with NF1 were comprehensively searched in the Pubmed database, Embase database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database and screened for inclusion of studies that met the criteria. We pooled the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), disease progression rate (DPR), and the rate of improvement in PN-related complications using meta-analysis. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was also statistically analyzed. RESULTS: This study included 10 clinical trials involving 268 patients. The pooled ORR was 68.0% (95% CI 58.0-77.3%), the DCR was 96.8% (95% CI 90.8-99.7%) and the DPR was only 1.4% (95% CI 0-4.3%). The pooled improvement rate was 75.3% (95% CI 56.2-90.9%) for pain and 77.8% (95% CI 63.1-92.5%) for motor disorders. Most adverse events were mild, with the most common being gastrointestinal reactions (diarrhea: 62.5%; vomiting: 54.5%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that selumetinib is effective in patients with NF1 and PN, significantly improving the serious complications associated with PN as well as having tolerable toxicities. Our findings help to increase clinicians' confidence in applying selumetinib and promote the clinical adoption and benefit of the new drug.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Prospective Cohort Study in Portugal.

INTRODUCTION: Information about pan-genotypic treatments for hepatitis in Portugal is scarce. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glecaprevir plus pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: An observational prospective study was implemented in six hospitals with 121 adult HCV patients who initiated treatment with GLE/PIB between October 2018 and April 2019, according to clinical practice. Eligible patients had confirmed HCV infection genotype (GT) 1 to 6 and were either treatment-naïve or had experience with interferon-, ribavirin- or sofosbuvir-based regimens, with or without compensated cirrhosis. Baseline sociodemographic and safety data are described for the total population (N = 115). Effectiveness [sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12)] and patient-reported outcomes are presented for the core population with sufficient follow-up data (n = 97). RESULTS: Most patients were male (83.5%), aged < 65 years (94.8%), with current or former alcohol consumption (77.3%), illicit drug use (72.6%), and HCV acquisition through intravenous drug use (62.0%). HIV co-infection occurred in 22.6% of patients. The prevalence of each GT was: GT1 51.3%, GT2 1.7%, GT3 30.4%, GT4 16.5%, and GT5.6 0%. Most patients were non-cirrhotic (80.9%) and treatment-naïve (93.8%). The SVR12 rates were 97.9% (95% CI: 92.8 - 99.4), and > 95% across cirrhosis status, GT, illicit drug use, alcohol consumption, and HCV treatment experience. The adverse event rate was 2.6%, and no patient discontinued treatment due to adverse events related to GLE/PIB. CONCLUSION: Consistent with other real-world studies and clinical trials, treatment with GLE/PIB showed high effectiveness and tolerability overall and in difficult-to-treat subgroups (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03303599).

Abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment for high-risk early breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To adapt the GHEMA report of abemaciclib, an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6. European Medicines Agency authorization (April 2022) includes, in combination with endocrine therapy, the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. METHOD: The efficacy and safety of abemaciclib were evaluated in a randomized, open-label, and multicenter phase III study. A total of 5637 patients diagnosed with early breast cancer with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node positive, and high risk of recurrence were included. High risk was defined as patients with 4 or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes and at least one of the following: tumor size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or Ki-67≥20%. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive adjuvant abemaciclib+endocrine therapy (n = 2808) or endocrine therapy alone (n = 2829) for 2 years, with endocrine therapy prescribed for at least 5 years. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 15.5 months, abemaciclib+endocrine therapy demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival versus endocrine therapy alone [HR = 0.747 (95% CI 0.598-0.932), P = 0.0096]; achieving an absolute improvement of 3.5% invasive disease-free survival rate at 2-years. These results were maintained, with a median follow-up of 27.7 months: absolute improvement of 2.7% and 5.4% in invasive disease-free survival rate at 2 and 3 years, respectively. All-causality grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 45.9% for abemaciclib and 12.9% for endocrine therapy, and included neutropenia (19.6% vs. 0.8%), leukopenia (11.4% vs. 0.4%), and diarrhea (7.8% vs. 0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pivotal trial are sufficient to consider abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment for high-risk early breast cancer in highly selected patients. However, in order to the efficacy results present less uncertainty, we must wait for a evaluation later, in which we can have a mature determination at 3 years (with more patients at risk).

Safety of Intravenous Pantoprazole Sodium in Pediatric Patients Aged 1 Month to < 1 Year: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence rates (IR) of prespecified outcomes of interest in pediatric patients (1 month to < 1 year) treated with intravenous (IV) pantoprazole using Optum's longitudinal electronic health records database (Optum Market Clarity) from the United States (US). METHODS: This real-world, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in patients who received IV pantoprazole. Premature patients and those weighing < 2.36 kg were excluded. Patients were categorized based on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) into: Subgroup 1 (GERD and EE), Subgroup 2 (GERD and no EE), and Subgroup 3 (absence of GERD and EE). Overall IRs (per 1000 person-years [PY]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcomes were estimated (overall and subgroups) and stratified by duration of IV pantoprazole treatment (< 4 days versus ≥ 4 days). RESULTS: Of 1879 eligible patients, none were identified in Subgroup 1; 851 (45.3%) and 1028 (54.7%) patients were identified in Subgroups 2 and 3, respectively. IRs of outcomes of interest ranged from 0.0 to 742.8 per 1000 PY. IRs were highest for vomiting (742.80), diarrhea (377.77), abdominal distension (214.31), hyponatremia (204.99), and hypokalemia (203.49). IRs were comparable between Subgroups 2 and 3. For most outcomes, IRs were higher among patients treated with IV pantoprazole for ≥ 4 days versus those treated for < 4 days. CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with the known safety profile of pantoprazole and emphasize the utility of using real-world data from pediatric populations for assessment of safety outcomes.

Abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment for high-risk early breast cancer. / [Artículo traducido] Abemaciclib en adyuvancia para el tratamiento del cáncer de mama precoz de alto riesgo.

OBJECTIVE: To adapt the GHEMA report of abemaciclib, an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6. European Medicines Agency authorisation (April 2022) includes, in combination with endocrine therapy, the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. METHOD: The efficacy and safety of abemaciclib were evaluated in a randomized, open-label and multicenter phase III study. A total of 5,637 patients diagnosed with early breast cancer with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node positive and high risk of recurrence were included. High risk was defined as patients with 4 or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or 1-3positive axillary lymph nodes and at least one of the following: tumor size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3 or Ki-67 ≥ 20%. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive adjuvant abemaciclib + endocrine therapy (n = 2,808) or endocrine therapy alone (n = 2,829) for 2 years, with endocrine therapy prescribed for at least 5 years. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 15.5 months, abemaciclib + endocrine therapy demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival versus endocrine therapy alone (HR = 0.747 [95% CI 0.598-0.932], p = 0.0096); achieving an absolute improvement of 3.5% invasive disease-free survival rate at 2-years. These results were maintained, with a median follow-up of 27.7 months: absolute improvement of 2.7% and 5.4% in invasive disease-free survival rate at 2 and 3-years, respectively. All-causality grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 45.9% for abemaciclib and 12.9% for endocrine therapy, and included neutropenia (19.6% vs. 0.8%), leukopenia (11.4% vs. 0.4%) and diarrhea (7.8% vs. 0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pivotal trial are sufficient to consider abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment for high-risk early breast cancer in highly selected patients. However, in order to the efficacy results present less uncertainty, we must wait for a evaluation later, in which we can have a mature determination at 3 years (with more patients at risk).

Risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan in patients.

There is a lack of studies comparing the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular disease between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) of different half-lives. We aimed to compare the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan with different half-lives in a national claim-based retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥ 40 years with hypertension. To establish a cohort exposed to valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan, we performed propensity score (PS) matching and used an as-treated approach to evaluate exposure. The Cox regression model was employed to calculate hazard ratios, which were based on the incidence rate for each newly occurring event of MI, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease. These hazard ratios were calculated to compare the risk of MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease associated with valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan in comparison to telmisartan. A PS-matched cohort of 148,229 patients was established for each of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan. The matched cohort analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHRs, 95% confidence interval) for MI was higher for valsartan use (1.39, 1.33-1.45) and losartan use (1.10, 1.05-1.15) but lower for irbesartan use (0.90, 0.86-0.94) compared with the reference (telmisartan). The aHRs for HF were not different among these ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers). The aHR for cerebrovascular disease was lower for valsartan use (0.85, 0.83-0.87) and losartan use (0.80, 0.78-0.82) but higher for irbesartan use (1.11, 1.09-1.13) compared with the reference. We found differences in the risk of MI and cerebrovascular disease with the use of different ARBs compared to telmisartan use. Valsartan, and losartan with a short half-life, which showed a higher risk of MI, had a lower risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, irbesartan with a long half-life, which showed a lower risk of MI, had a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease.

Efficacy and safety of veliparib combined with traditional chemotherapy for treating patients with lung cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Lung cancer, originating from bronchial mucosa or lung glands, poses significant health risks due to its rising incidence and mortality. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Veliparib combined with chemotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone for lung cancer treatment, guiding clinical approaches for this severe disease. Methods: Comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Veliparib combined with standard chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in lung cancer treatment, up until December 28, 2022. Two reviewers meticulously selected literature based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. Results: Five RCTs (1,010 participants) were included. The analysis results showed that only Veliparib combinedwith chemotherapy prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients [HR = 0.72, 95% CI = (0.57, 0.90)]. No significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Veliparib and combined chemotherapy caused some side effects in patients with lung cancer, including leukopenia [RR = 2.12, 95% CI = (1.27, 3.55)], neutropenia [RR = 1.51, 95% CI = (1.01, 2.26)], anemia [RR = 1.71, 95% CI = (1.07, 3.07)], and thrombocytopenia [RR = 3.33, 95% CI = (1.19, 9.30)]. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, there were no statistically significant differences in PFS, OS, or ORR between the experimental and control groups [HR = 0.97, 95% CI = (0.75, 1.27)]. Conclusion: The strategy of combining Veliparib with chemotherapy may, to some extent, prolong the PFS in lung cancer patients. However, this benefit is not observed in OS or ORR. Additionally, there are evident adverse reactions. Due to a limited number of the included studies, additional extensive multicenter RCTs are required to validate these results. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023411510.

Efficacy and safety of veliparib plus chemotherapy for the treatment of lung cancer: A systematic review of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: As a poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, veliparib has been identified as a potential therapeutic agent for lung cancer. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of veliparib for treating lung cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched up to October 30, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy or safety of veliparib in the treatment of lung cancer patients were included. Studies were excluded if they were not RCTs, enrolled healthy participants or patients with conditions other than lung cancer, or investigated therapeutic approaches other than veliparib. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: The seven RCTs (n = 2188) showed that patients treated with a combination of veliparib and chemotherapy had a significantly higher risk of adverse events, when compared to the control arm. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between those treated with veliparib plus chemotherapy and those receiving the standard therapies. Only two trials demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), and only one study found an increase in objective response rate (ORR). Furthermore, adding veliparib to standard chemotherapy showed no benefit in extending the duration of response (DoR) in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small number of studies have found veliparib to be effective, in terms of improved OS, PFS, and ORR, while the majority of studies found no benefit for veliparib over standard treatment.

Phase Ib/II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Binimetinib (MEK162) Plus Panitumumab for Mutant or Wild-Type RAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Activating RAS gene mutations occur in approximately 55% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and are associated with poorer clinical outcomes due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade resistance. Combined EGFR and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibition may extend response to EGFR inhibition and overcome acquired resistance. This phase Ib/II dose escalation trial evaluated the safety and activity of dual inhibition with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) and panitumumab (EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi]) in patients with RAS mutant or BRAF wild type (WT)/RAS WT mCRC. METHODS: Phase Ib dose escalation started with binimetinib 45 mg twice daily plus panitumumab 6 mg/kg administered every 2 weeks. In the phase II study, patients with measurable mCRC were enrolled into 4 groups based on previous anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy and RAS mutational status. RESULTS: No patients in the phase Ib portion (n = 10) had a response; 70% of patients had stable disease. In the phase II portion (n = 43), overall response rate (ORR, confirmed) was 2.3% with one partial response in the RAS WT group, DCR was 30.2%, and median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95%CI, 1.6-3.3). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, with the most common being diarrhea (71.7%), vomiting (52.8%), nausea (50.9%), fatigue (49.1%), dermatitis acneiform (43.4%), and rash (41.5%). Most patients required treatment interruption or dose reduction due to difficulties tolerating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of binimetinib and panitumumab had substantial toxicity and limited clinical activity for patients with mutant or WT RAS mCRC, independent of EGFRi treatment history (Trial registration: NCT01927341).

NCI 7977: A Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Intermittent Oral ABT-888 (Veliparib) plus Intravenous Irinotecan Administered in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose: Veliparib is a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) with activity in BRCA 1/2/PALB2-deficient tumors. Preclinical observations reveal topoisomerase inhibitors like irinotecan are synergistic with PARPi irrespective of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), potentially expanding the role for PARPi. Experimental Design: NCI 7977 was a multicohort phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of multiple dose schedules of veliparib with irinotecan for solid tumors. In the intermittent veliparib cohort, escalating doses of veliparib were given twice daily at dose level (DL) 1 (50 mg) and DL 2 (100 mg) days 1-4 and 8-11 with irinotecan 100 mg/m2 days 3 and 10 in 21-day cycles. Results: Fifteen patients enrolled, 8 of 15 (53%) received ≥4 prior systemic treatments. At DL1, 1 of 6 patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of diarrhea. At DL2, 9 patients were treated, with 3 unevaluable for DLT, and 2 of 6 evaluable patients experienced a DLT of grade 3 neutropenia. Irinotecan 100 mg/m2 and veliparib 50 mg twice daily was the MTD. No objective responses were observed, although 4 patients had progression-free survival >6 months. Conclusions: The MTD of intermittent veliparib is 50 mg twice daily days 1-4 and 8-11 with weekly irinotecan 100 mg/m2 days 3 and 10 every 21 days. Multiple patients experienced prolonged stable disease irrespective of HRD and prior irinotecan. However, due to the toxicities with higher dose intermittent veliparib and irinotecan, this schedule was determined too toxic for further development and the arm was closed prematurely. Significance: The combination of intermittent veliparib with weekly irinotecan was deemed too toxic for further development. Future PARPi combinations should focus on agents with nonoverlapping toxicities to improve tolerability. The treatment combination showed limited efficacy with prolonged stable disease observed in multiple heavily pretreated patients, but no objective responses were seen.

Clinical Management of Potential Toxicity of Abemaciclib and Approaches to Ensure Treatment Continuation.

INTRODUCTION: The association between abemaciclib dose reduction and treatment adherence is not clear. In this study, we examined real-world data of Japanese patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) to determine how abemaciclib dose reduction is related to treatment continuation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study involved 120 consecutive patients with ABC who received abemaciclib from December 2018 to March 2021. The time to treatment failure (TTF) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with a TTF of >365 days (TTF365). RESULTS: According to the dose reduction during treatment, the patients were classified into 100, 200, and 300 mg/day abemaciclib groups. The 300 mg/day group had a TTF of 7.4 months, whereas the 100 and 200 mg/day groups had significantly longer TTFs (17.9 and 17.3 months, respectively; P = 0.0002). In this study, relative to the 300 mg/day arm, TTF was improved in 200mg/day arm and 100 mg/day arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.93) and [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.74). For patients who received 300mg/day of abemaciclib dose arm, 200mg/day, and 100mg/day, the median TTF was 7.4 ,17.9 and 17.3 months. The frequently reported adverse effects (AEs) were anemia, increased blood creatinine levels, diarrhea, and neutropenia (90%, 83%, 83%, and 75% of the patients, respectively). Neutropenia, fatigue, and diarrhea were the top AEs causing dose reduction. A multivariate analysis that examined factors associated with achieving TTF 365 confirmed that dose down was an important factor (odds ratio: 3.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.68-9.36, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the 100 and 200 mg/day groups had a longer TTF than the 300 mg/day group, and dose reduction was identified as an important factor in achieving longer TTF.