Headache in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system characterized by autoimmune-mediated damage to oligodendrocytes and subsequent myelin destruction. Clinical implications: Clinically, the disease presents with many symptoms, often evolving over time. The insidious onset of MS often manifests with non-specific symptoms (prodromal phase), which may precede a clinical diagnosis by several years. Among them, headache is a prominent early indicator, affecting a significant number of MS patients (50-60%). Results: Headache manifests as migraine or tension-type headache with a clear female predilection (female-male ratio 2-3:1). Additionally, some disease-modifying therapies in MS can also induce headache. For instance, teriflunomide, interferons, ponesimod, alemtuzumab and cladribine are associated with an increased incidence of headache. Conclusions: The present review analyzed the literature data on the relationship between headache and MS to provide clinicians with valuable insights for optimized patient management and the therapeutic decision-making process.

Ruxolitinib associated psoas muscle tuberculosis abscess in a primary myelofibrosis woman: A case report and literature review.

RATIONALE: Primary myelofibrosis is a subtype of myeloproliferative neoplasm that leads to bone marrow fibrosis. Historically, the only curative option for primary myelofibrosis was allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, is now used for the treatment of primary myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. It effectively improves symptoms related to splenomegaly and anemia. However, its association with the development of opportunistic infections has been observed in clinical studies and practical application. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 64-year-old female with primary myelofibrosis and chronic hepatitis B infection who received ruxolitinib treatment. She was admitted for spiking fever and altered consciousness. DIAGNOSIS: Tuberculosis meningitis was suspected but cerebrospinal fluid can't identify any pathogens. An abdominal computed tomography scan revealed a left psoas abscess and an enlarged spleen. A computed tomography-guided pus drainage procedure was performed, showing a strong positive acid-fast stain and a positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis polymerase chain reaction result. INTERVENTIONS: antituberculosis medications were administered. The patient developed a psoas muscle abscess caused by tuberculosis and multiple dermatomes of herpes zoster during antituberculosis treatment. OUTCOMES: The patient was ultimately discharged after 6 weeks of treatment without apparent neurological sequelae. LESSONS: This case underscores the importance of clinicians evaluating latent infections and ensuring full vaccination prior to initiating ruxolitinib-related treatment for primary myelofibrosis.

Incidence of pleural effusion with dasatinib and the effect of switching therapy to a different TKI in patients with chronic phase CML.

Dasatinib is one of the second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) which is approved for the treatment of patients with chronic phase CML (CP-CML) both in the front line and in the second line setting. Pleural effusion (PE) is a unique toxicity associated with dasatinib use. Our aim was to study the incidence of pleural effusion in our cohort of patients who were treated with dasatinib for CP-CML and the safety upon TKI switch. A total of 390 patients were treated with dasatinib during their course of treatment for CP-CML. A total of 69 patients (17.6%) developed any grade of PE. About 33 (48%) patients developed CTCAE grade 2 PE, 34 (49%) grade 3 and only 1 patient developed grade 4 PE. Recurrence of PE was observed in 34 (49%) patients. While only 12 patients (17.3%) continued using dasatinib after development of PE, dasatinib was discontinued in the other 57 patients. Therapy was switched to bosutinib in 13 patients out of which 6 (46%) patients re-developed PE. While only 12.5% patients developed re-accumulation of pleural fluid in patients switched to imatinib, none of the patients switched to nilotinib re-developed PE. A change in TKI to bosutinib was associated with a 46% risk of recurrence of PE in patients who develop PE on dasatinib for the treatment of CP-CML. The incidence of recurrent PE was markedly lower in patient switched to imatinib or nilotinib.

Levodopa-Carbidopa-Entacapone Intestinal Gel in Advanced Parkinson Disease: A Multicenter Real-Life Experience.

BACKGROUND: For Parkinson disease (PD) patients who have been diagnosed with advanced disease that can no longer be effectively controlled with optimized oral or transdermal medications, a range of device-aided therapies (DAT) are available, comprising either deep brain stimulation or infusion therapies providing continuous dopaminergic stimulation. Levodopa-entacapone-carbidopa intestinal gel (LECIG) infusion is the latest DAT for advanced PD (APD) that was approved in Romania in 2021. STUDY QUESTION: What is the experience to date in real-world clinical practice in Romania regarding the efficacy and tolerability of LECIG in APD? STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation of 74 APD patients treated with LECIG at 12 specialized APD centers in Romania. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Demographic data and various clinical parameters were recorded, including Mini Mental State Evaluation score or Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test score. Levodopa-equivalent daily dose and the administered doses of levodopa and other PD medications were evaluated at baseline and after starting LECIG treatment. The efficacy of LECIG in reducing daily hours of off time, motor fluctuations, and dyskinesias were assessed. Any percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy system or device complications after starting LECIG treatment were noted. RESULTS: At baseline, patients were taking oral levodopa for a mean of 5.3 times per day, with a high proportion also taking concomitant add-on therapies (dopamine agonists, 86%, monoamine oxidase type-B inhibitors, 53%; catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, 64%). LECIG treatment significantly reduced daily off time versus baseline from 5.7 h/d to 1.7 hours per day ( P < 0.01). Duration and severity of dyskinesias was also significantly reduced versus baseline, and improvements were observed in Hoehn and Yahr Scale scores. LECIG treatment also allowed a significant reduction in the use of concomitant oral medications. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that LECIG treatment is an effective DAT option in APD that can simplify the treatment regimen.

A case report of drug interaction between co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and tacrolimus causing hyponatremia in a lung transplant recipient.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in lung transplant recipients can be lethal owing to the use of immunosuppressants. Antiviral agents may be administered to these patients. Co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is a new agent currently being used in combination. CASE PRESENTATION: In this report, we present a case of a 64-year-old woman, a lung transplant recipient, who experienced hyponatremia and showed a high serum tacrolimus concentration following the administration of the co-packaged nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination. CONCLUSION: Although the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and tacrolimus combination is not contraindicated, other treatment strategies should be considered first, if available, and the dose of tacrolimus should be reduced when using the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination. In cases where combination therapy is necessary, serum tacrolimus levels should be closely monitored in lung transplant recipients. Documentation of more such reports is important to identify drug interactions between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and other agents, with the aim of preventing severe adverse effects.

Efficacy and Safety of Ponesimod Compared with Teriflunomide in Female Patients with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Findings from the Pivotal OPTIMUM Study.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is threefold more prevalent in women than men. However, sex-specific efficacy analysis for MS disease-modifying therapies is not typically performed. Methods: Post hoc analyses of data from female patients enrolled in the phase 3, double-blind OPTIMUM study of relapsing MS were carried out. Eligible adults were randomized to ponesimod 20 mg or teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 108 weeks. The primary endpoint was annualized relapse rate (ARR); secondary endpoints included change in symptom domain of Fatigue Symptom and Impact Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (FSIQ-RMS) at week 108, number of combined unique active lesions (CUALs) per year on magnetic resonance imaging, and time to 12- and 24-week confirmed disability accumulation (CDA). Results: A total of 735 female patients (581 of childbearing potential) were randomized to ponesimod (n = 363, 49.4%) or teriflunomide (n = 372, 50.6%). Relative risk reduction in the ARR for ponesimod versus teriflunomide was 33.1% (mean, 0.192 vs. 0.286, respectively; p < 0.002). Mean difference in FSIQ-RMS for ponesimod versus teriflunomide was -4.34 (0.12 vs. 4.46; p = 0.002); rate ratio in CUALs per year, 0.601 (1.45 vs. 2.41; p < 0.0001), and hazard ratio for time to 12- and 24-week CDA risk estimates, 0.83 (10.7% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.38) and 0.91 (8.8% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.69), respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatment groups (89.0% and 90.1%). Conclusions: Analyses demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ponesimod, versus active comparator, for women with relapsing MS, supporting data-informed decision-making for women with MS. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02425644.

Usage of vildagliptin among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a public primary healthcare clinics in Kuala Selangor District, Selangor.

INTRODUCTION: Studies showed that vildagliptin can lower HbA1c levels by 0.8%-1%. However, there is limited data looking at vildagliptin use among suburban populations. The efficacy of vildagliptin use may differ among different populations, especially those with low socio-economic status. Thus, this study aimed to assess the HbA1c reduction after vildagliptin initiation, treatment patterns and the reason for its initiation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending outpatient clinics in Kuala Selangor District, Selangor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study design. All patients who received vildagliptin in the Pharmacy Integrated Health System (PHIS) registry database from 2016 to 2021 were included as study samples. The exclusion criteria were being less than 18 years old and having type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patients' medical records were retrieved after sampling, and data were collected. One medical record was missing, thus SPSS analysis were performed on 144 vildagliptin users. RESULTS: In total, 84 females (58.3%) and 60 males (41.7%) with a mean age of 62.1 (±10.1) years were analysed in this study. Mean HbA1c pre-therapy was 8.5 ± 2.1%; while posttherapy 6 months demonstrated a mean HbA1c of 7.9 ± 1.8%. Use of vildagliptin alone or as an adjunct was associated with a mean reduction of 0.6% in HbA1c (p = 0.01). Factors influencing this HbA1c reduction were advancing age, specifically individuals aged 62 years and older (p = 0.02), patients who are already receiving insulin therapy (p=0.00) and those who express a willingness to commence insulin treatment during the counselling session prior to initiating the treatment plan (p = 0.00). Reasons for vildagliptin initiation documented by prescribers were non-insulin acceptance (n = 59, 40.97%), frequent hypoglycaemia (n = 6, 4.1%) and non-compliance with medications (n = 23, 15.9%). There was no association between demographic, medical background and reason for starting vildagliptin variables and HbA1c reduction (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study showed that initiating vildagliptin alone or as an adjunct therapy significantly reduced HbA1c and is beneficial for uncontrolled diabetes patients. While advancing age, concurrent administration of insulin and the patients' willingness to accept insulin treatment prior to the commencement of therapy were the factors that influenced HbA1c reduction among patients receiving vildagliptin therapy, we recommend primary care providers prioritise all of the significant variables discovered before initiating vildagliptin for their patients.

Endocrine-Sensitive Disease Rate in Postmenopausal Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Rich/ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Anastrozole, Fulvestrant, or Their Combination: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease. Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023. Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression). Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.

Impact of age and comorbidities on the efficacy and tolerability of bosutinib in previously treated patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the phase 4 BYOND study.

In the phase 4 BYOND trial, patients with pretreated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) received bosutinib (starting dose: 500 mg/day). Efficacy and safety after ≥3 years of follow-up in 156 patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic phase CML by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (without the age component; mCCI) is reported. Cumulative major molecular response rates at any time on treatment were 73.6%, 64.5%, and 74.1% in patients <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years of age, and 77.9%, 63.0%, and 59.3% in patients with mCCI scores 2, 3, and ≥4, respectively. Patients <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years of age experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at rates of 74.7%, 78.8%, and 96.4% and permanent discontinuations due to AEs at rates of 22.1%, 39.4%, and 46.4%, respectively. In patients with mCCI 2, 3, and ≥4, respective rates of grade 3/4 TEAEs were 77.8%, 77.8%, and 86.7%, and permanent discontinuations due to AEs were 25.3%, 33.3%, and 43.3%. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of patients maintained/achieved cytogenetic and molecular responses across age groups and mCCI scores. Older patients (≥75 years) and those with high comorbidity burden (mCCI ≥4) may require more careful monitoring due to the increased risk of TEAEs. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02228382.

Bosutinib: Pediatric First Approval.

Bosutinib (BOSULIF®), an orally administered BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) developed by Pfizer Inc., is well established in the EU and the USA as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed (ND) chronic phase (CP) Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), and for CP, accelerated phase and blast phase Ph+ CML that is resistant or intolerant (R/I) to prior therapy. In September 2023, based on clinical data from patients aged ≥ 1 to < 18 years, bosutinib was approved in the USA for the treatment of pediatric patients aged ≥ 1 year with CP Ph+ CML that is ND or R/I to prior therapy. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of bosutinib leading to this first pediatric approval.

[Optimizing the use of bosutinib in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: Recommendations of a panel of experts from the Fi-LMC (French CML working group)]. / Optimisation du bosutinib dans la leucémie myéloïde chronique : recommandations du Fi-LMC (France Intergroupe des leucémies myéloïdes chroniques).

The treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia relies on orally available tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the BCR::ABL1 oncoprotein. Bosutinib is a second generation adenosine triphosphate-competitive inhibitor approved for use in frontline adult chronic phase-chronic myeloid leukemia and all phases-chronic myeloid leukemia in the second line setting or beyond. Its efficacy was demonstrated in several pivotal clinical trials at 400mg once daily in the first line context and at 500mg once daily beyond first line. Bosutinib-related adverse events frequently occur early after treatment initiation and include gastro-intestinal symptoms and cytolytic hepatitis. These drug-related adverse events must be properly managed in order to preserve safety, efficacy and treatment acceptability. The French chronic myeloid leukemia study group gathered a panel of experts in hematology, pharmacology and hepatology in order to elaborate practical recommendations on the management of bosutinib treatment. These recommendations aim at optimizing the short and long-term tolerance and benefit/risk balance of bosutinib, mainly focusing at gastro-intestinal and liver toxicities.

Bosutinib in Resistant and Intolerant Pediatric Patients With Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Phase I Part of Study ITCC054/COG AAML1921.

PURPOSE: Bosutinib is approved for adults with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): 400 mg once daily in newly diagnosed (ND); 500 mg once daily in resistant/intolerant (R/I) patients. Bosutinib has a different tolerability profile than other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and potentially less impact on growth (preclinical data). The primary objective of this first-in-child trial was to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for pediatric R/I and ND patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase I part of this international, open-label trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04258943), children age 1-18 years with R/I (per European LeukemiaNet 2013) Ph+ CML were enrolled using a 6 + 4 design, testing 300, 350, and 400 mg/m2 once daily with food. The RP2D was the dose resulting in 0/6 or 1/10 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first cycle and achieving adult target AUC levels for the respective indication. As ND participants were only enrolled in phase II, the ND RP2D was selected based on data from R/I patients. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled; 27 were evaluable for DLT: six at 300 mg/m2, 11 at 350 mg/m2 (one DLT), and 10 at 400 mg/m2 (one DLT). The mean AUCs at 300 mg/m2, 350 mg/m2, and 400 mg/m2 were 2.20 µg h/mL, 2.52 µg h/mL, and 2.66 µg h/mL, respectively. The most common adverse event was diarrhea (93%; ≥grade 3: 11%). Seven patients stopped because of intolerance and eight because of insufficient response. Complete cytogenetic and major molecular response to bosutinib appeared comparable with other published phase I/II trials with second-generation TKIs in children. CONCLUSION: Bosutinib was safe and effective. The pediatric RP2D was 400 mg/m2 once daily (max 600 mg/d) with food in R/I patients and 300 mg/m2 once daily (max 500 mg/d) with food in ND patients, which achieved targeted exposures as per adult experience.

GnRH antagonist monotherapy versus a GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; KYUCOG-1401.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist monotherapy to combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide in patients with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). METHODS: The study was conducted as KYUCOG-1401 trial (UMIN000014243) and enrolled 200 patients who were randomly assigned to either group A (GnRH antagonist monotherapy followed by the addition of bicalutamide) or group B (CAB by a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide). The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were the time to CAB treatment failure, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, changes in serum parameters, including PSA, hormones, and bone and lipid metabolic markers, and adverse events. RESULTS: PSA progression-free survival was significantly longer in group B (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.40, 1.01-1.95, p = 0.041). The time to CAB treatment failure was slightly longer in group A (HR, 95% CI; 0.80, 0.59-1.08, p = 0.146). No significant differences were observed in radiographic progression-free survival or overall survival. The percentage of patients with serum testosterone that did not reach the castration level was higher at 60 weeks (p = 0.046) in group A. No significant differences were noted in the serum levels of bone metabolic or lipid markers between the two groups. An injection site reaction was more frequent in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The present results support the potential of CAB using a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide as a more effective treatment for advanced HSPC than GnRH antagonist monotherapy.

Improved Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

At present, there are some differences in the research results of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs and the impact of different antiviral drugs on the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched to identify relevant studies from inception to March 30, 2023. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir compared with other antiviral drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and safety outcomes. The RoB1 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42023397816). Twelve studies were included, including 30 588 COVID-19 patients, of whom 13 402 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The meta-analysis results showed that the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group had a lower proportion of patients than the control group in terms of long-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.66), hospitalization (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37-0.53, short term; OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.77, long term), and disease progression (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.83, short term; OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.74, long term), and nirmatrelvir ritonavir showed little difference in safety compared to the control group. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir can reduce the mortality and hospitalization of COVID-19 patients compared with other antiviral drugs. Further large-scale studies remain to validate these findings.

Post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of isavuconazole in older patients with invasive fungal disease from the VITAL and SECURE studies.

Isavuconazole is a triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. In this post-hoc analysis of two prospective clinical trials (VITAL and SECURE), the safety and efficacy of isavuconazole in patients aged ≥ 65 years with invasive fungal diseases were evaluated. Patients were divided into two subgroups (≥ 65 and < 65 years). Adverse events (AEs); all-cause mortality; and overall, clinical, mycological, and radiological response were assessed. A total of 155 patients ≥ 65 years were enrolled in both trials. Most patients reported AEs. In the isavuconazole arm of both studies, serious AEs (SAEs) were greater in patients ≥ 65 versus < 65 years: 76.7% versus 56.9% (VITAL); 61.9% versus 49.0% (SECURE). In SECURE, SAE rates were similar in the ≥ 65 years subgroup of both treatment arms (61.9% vs 58.1%), while in the < 65 years subgroup the SAE rate was lower in the isavuconazole arm (49.0% vs 57.4%). In VITAL, all-cause mortality through day 42 (30.0% vs 13.8%) was higher, and overall response at end of treatment (27.6% vs 46.8%) was lower in patients ≥ 65 years versus < 65 years. In SECURE, all-cause mortality was similar between both subgroups, and isavuconazole (20.6% vs 17.9%) and voriconazole (22.6% vs 19.4%) treatment arms. The overall response was lower in the ≥ 65 years than the < 65 years subgroup in the isavuconazole (23.7% vs 39.0%) and voriconazole (32.0% vs 37.5%) arms. The safety and efficacy of isavuconazole were better in patients < 65 versus ≥ 65 years, and the safety profile was more favorable than that of voriconazole in both subgroups.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00634049 and NCT00412893.