Combination of PARP Inhibitor Olaparib, and PD-L1 Inhibitor Durvalumab, in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: a Proof-of-Concept Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies suggest PARP inhibition (PARPi) induces immunostimulatory micromilieu in ovarian cancer thus complementing activity of immune checkpoint blockade. We conducted a phase II trial of PARPi olaparib and anti-PD-L1 durvalumab and collected paired fresh core biopsies and blood samples to test this hypothesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a single-center, proof-of-concept phase II study, we enrolled women aged ≥18 with recurrent ovarian cancer. All patients were immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve and had measurable disease per RECISTv1.1, ECOG performance status 0-2, and adequate organ and marrow function. Patients received olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1,500 mg intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were safety and progression-free survival (PFS). Translational objectives included biomarker evaluation for relationships with clinical response and immunomodulatory effects by treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with ovarian cancer [median, four prior therapies (IQR, 2-5.5), predominantly platinum-resistant (86%), BRCA wild-type (77%)] received at least one full cycle of treatment. ORR was 14% [5/35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8%-30.3%]. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 71% (25/35; 95% CI, 53.7%-85.4%). Treatment enhanced IFNγ and CXCL9/CXCL10 expression, systemic IFNγ/TNFα production, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, indicating an immunostimulatory environment. Increased IFNγ production was associated with improved PFS [HR, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16-0.87), P = 0.023], while elevated VEGFR3 levels were associated with worse PFS (HR, 3.22 (95% CI, 1.23-8.40), P = 0.017]. CONCLUSIONS: The PARPi and anti-PD-L1 combination showed modest clinical activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. Our correlative study results suggest immunomodulatory effects by olaparib/durvalumab in patients and indicate that VEGF/VEGFR pathway blockade would be necessary for improved efficacy of the combination.

ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH THYROID HORMONE EXTRACT.

OBJECTIVE: Thyroid hormone extract is used for the treatment of thyroid disorders, but limited data exist on adverse events commonly noted by the physicians associated with this use. The purpose of this survey was to report adverse events observed by expert physicians managing patients treated for thyroid disease with thyroid hormones. METHODS: Members of the American Thyroid Association, The Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists developed a survey instrument modeled on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s reported adverse events for levothyroxine that would effectively assess the clinical experience of frequent prescribers of thyroid hormone. Survey links were emailed to physicians, and the websites of each society provided links to the data collection form. RESULTS: A total of 174 reports of adverse events occurring in patients on thyroid hormone extract were received. Ninety-one of these reports were accompanied by alterations in thyrotropin values and were further analyzed. Of these, 62 (68%) subjects had developed new symptoms associated with altered thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). A majority of TSH changes and symptoms described were consistent with thyrotoxicosis (65%), and 2 patients had developed arrhythmias. Reporters noted difficulty in dose adjustment by primary care providers due to confusion in interpreting thyroid function test results while on thyroid extract, which often necessitated subspecialty referrals. CONCLUSION: These adverse event reports should stimulate consideration by the FDA to regulate and monitor thyroid hormone extract use and consider standardizing these extracts to meet current standards of manufacture, hormone content, availability, and shelf-life, like the rigor with which preparations such as levothyroxine are monitored. ABBREVIATIONS: AE = adverse event ATA = American Thyroid Association FDA = Food and Drug Administration LT3 = liothyronine LT4 = levothyroxine PTF = Pharmacovigilance Task Force T3 = triiodothyronine TSH = thyroid-stimulating hormone.

Comparison of serum carnitine levels and clinical correlates between outpatients and acutely hospitalised individuals with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare serum carnitine levels and clinical correlates between stable outpatients and acutely hospitalised individuals with diagnoses of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. METHODS: We obtained clinical information as well as serum levels for total and free carnitine, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides in 60 consenting individuals. RESULTS: We found higher total serum carnitine levels in our outpatient group in comparison to acutely hospitalised psychiatric patients, with a statistically significant P value of 0.045. Metabolic syndrome was more prevalent in the outpatient (37.9%) versus inpatient group (16.1%). We identified significantly higher carnitine levels in patients who met the criteria for metabolic syndrome in comparison to the patients without metabolic syndrome, with respective P values for total and free carnitine of 0.0048 and 0.0029. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a complex relationship among carnitine metabolism, metabolic syndrome and behavioural outcomes. Future studies of carnitine metabolism in the context of mental illness as well as metabolic syndrome are warranted.

Documentation of study medication dispensing in a prospective large randomized clinical trial: experiences from the ARISTOTLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: In ARISTOTLE, apixaban resulted in a 21% reduction in stroke, a 31% reduction in major bleeding, and an 11% reduction in death. However, approval of apixaban was delayed to investigate a statement in the clinical study report that "7.3% of subjects in the apixaban group and 1.2% of subjects in the warfarin group received, at some point during the study, a container of the wrong type." METHODS: Rates of study medication dispensing error were characterized through reviews of study medication container tear-off labels in 6,520 participants from randomly selected study sites. The potential effect of dispensing errors on study outcomes was statistically simulated in sensitivity analyses in the overall population. RESULTS: The rate of medication dispensing error resulting in treatment error was 0.04%. Rates of participants receiving at least 1 incorrect container were 1.04% (34/3,273) in the apixaban group and 0.77% (25/3,247) in the warfarin group. Most of the originally reported errors were data entry errors in which the correct medication container was dispensed but the wrong container number was entered into the case report form. Sensitivity simulations in the overall trial population showed no meaningful effect of medication dispensing error on the main efficacy and safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of medication dispensing error were low and balanced between treatment groups. The initially reported dispensing error rate was the result of data recording and data management errors and not true medication dispensing errors. These analyses confirm the previously reported results of ARISTOTLE.

Costimulation blockade with belatacept in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Renal transplantation is the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although maintenance immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors yields excellent one-year survival, it is associated over the long term with high rates of death and graft loss, owing in part to the adverse renal, cardiovascular, and metabolic effects of these agents. The use of potentially less toxic agents, such as belatacept, a selective blocker of T-cell activation, may improve outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned renal-transplant recipients to receive an intensive or a less-intensive regimen of belatacept or cyclosporine. All patients received induction therapy with basiliximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of belatacept over cyclosporine in the incidence of acute rejection at six months (with an upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval around the treatment difference of less than 20 percent). RESULTS: At six months, the incidence of acute rejection was similar among the groups: 7 percent for intensive belatacept, 6 percent for less-intensive belatacept, and 8 percent for cyclosporine. At 12 months, the glomerular filtration rate was significantly higher with both intensive and less-intensive belatacept than it was with cyclosporine (66.3, 62.1, and 53.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, respectively), and chronic allograft nephropathy was less common with both regimens of belatacept than with cyclosporine (29 percent, 20 percent, and 44 percent, respectively). Lipid levels and blood-pressure values were similar or slightly lower in the belatacept groups, despite the greater use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications in the cyclosporine group. CONCLUSIONS: Belatacept, an investigational selective costimulation blocker, did not appear to be inferior to cyclosporine as a means of preventing acute rejection after renal transplantation. Belatacept may preserve the glomerular filtration rate and reduce the rate of chronic allograft nephropathy.

Incidence and characteristics of angioedema associated with enalapril.

BACKGROUND: Angioedema is a rare but potentially serious adverse event of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. However, no prospective, controlled studies have reported on its incidence and clinical characteristics. METHODS: We studied the occurrence of angioedema in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 12 557 persons with hypertension treated with enalapril maleate, 5 to 40 mg/d, using a prospective ascertainment and adjudication of angioedema by an expert committee. RESULTS: Angioedema occurred in 86 (0.68%) of the subjects. Stepwise logistic regression identified black race (odds ratio [OR], 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-4.82), history of drug rash (OR, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.80-7.92), age greater than 65 years (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53), and seasonal allergies (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.06-3.00) as independent risk factors for angioedema. The incidence of angioedema was higher after initiation of therapy (3.6/1000 patients per month) and declined to 0.4/1000 patients per month. Treatment was not given in 44 (51%) of the cases; antihistamines were administered in 35 (41%); corticosteroids, in 20 (23%); and epinephrine, in 1 (1%). Two patients were hospitalized but none had airway compromise. CONCLUSIONS: Enalapril-related angioedema is uncommon. Although it is most likely to occur early after initiation of therapy, it may occur at any time. It is more likely to occur in black patients, those older than 65 years, and those with a history of drug rash or seasonal allergies. Fatal angioedema or angioedema requiring airway protection did not occur in this study.

Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension: the Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. METHODS: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. RESULTS: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. CONCLUSIONS: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.

Nephrologist care and mortality in patients with chronic renal insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic renal insufficiency, rates of referral to nephrologists are highly variable, and little is known about the effect of such consultation on clinical outcomes. We sought to determine whether early or frequent access to nephrologist care prior to the initiation of dialysis was associated with a difference in mortality rates in the first year after dialysis began. METHODS: We identified all patients in the New Jersey Medicaid and Medicare programs who began maintenance dialysis during a 6-year period and who had been diagnosed with renal disease more than 12 months prior to dialysis. Use of nephrologist services was documented during this 1-year period, along with other clinical and sociodemographic variables. The outcome measure of our analysis was mortality in the first year after initiation of dialysis. RESULTS: From multivariate analyses, we found that patients who did not see a nephrologist until 90 days or less before initiation of dialysis had a 37% higher likelihood of death in the first year of dialysis compared with patients with earlier referral (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.52; P<.001). Similarly, those who saw a nephrologist on fewer than 5 occasions in the year prior to dialysis had a 15% higher mortality rate in the first year of dialysis compared with those who had had 5 or more nephrologist visits (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.28; P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with long-standing renal disease, earlier consultation with a nephrologist and more frequent specialist encounters is associated with lower mortality in the first year of dialysis. These findings need to be confirmed in younger and less indigent patients as well.