Brentuximab vedotin plus AVD for Hodgkin lymphoma: incidence and management of peripheral neuropathy in a multisite cohort.

Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) is increasingly used for frontline treatment of stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was the most common and treatment-limiting side effect seen in clinical trials but has not been studied in a nontrial setting, in which clinicians may have different strategies for managing it. We conducted a multisite retrospective study to characterize PN in patients who received BV + AVD for newly diagnosed cHL. One hundred fifty-three patients from 10 US institutions were eligible. Thirty-four patients (22%) had at least 1 ineligibility criteria for ECHELON-1, including stage, performance status, and comorbidities. PN was reported by 80% of patients during treatment; 39% experienced grade (G) 1, 31% G2, and 10% G3. In total, BV was modified in 44% of patients because of PN leading to BV discontinuation in 23%, dose reduction in 17%, and temporary hold in 4%. With a median follow-up of 24 months, PN resolution was documented in 36% and improvement in 33% at the last follow-up. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) for the advanced-stage patients was 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.90) and overall survival was 97.4% (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Patients who discontinued BV because of PN did not have inferior PFS. In the nontrial setting, BV + AVD was associated with a high incidence of PN. In our cohort, which includes patients who would not have been eligible for the pivotal ECHELON-1 trial, BV discontinuation rates were higher than previously reported, but 2-year outcomes remain comparable.

Impact of Subclinical and Clinical Kidney Allograft Rejection Within 1 Year Posttransplantation Among Compatible Transplant With Steroid Withdrawal Protocol.

Early acute kidney rejection remains an important clinical issue. METHODS: The current study included 552 recipients who had 1-2 surveillance or indication biopsy within the 1 y posttransplant. We evaluated the impact of type of allograft inflammation on allograft outcome. They were divided into 5 groups: no inflammation (NI: 95), subclinical inflammation (SCI: 244), subclinical T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) (SC-TCMR: 110), clinical TCMR (C-TCMR: 83), and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR: 20). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time using linear mixed model, cumulative chronic allograft scores/interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) ≥2 at 12 mo, and survival estimates were compared between groups. RESULTS: The common types of rejections were C-TCMR (15%), SC-TCMR (19.9%), and AMR (3.6%) of patients. Eighteen of 20 patients with AMR had mixed rejection with TCMR. Key findings were as follows: (i) posttransplant renal function: eGFR was lower for patients with C-TCMR and AMR (P < 0.0001) compared with NI, SCI, and SC-TCMR groups. There was an increase in delta-creatinine from 3 to 12 mo and cumulative allograft chronicity scores at 12 mo (P < 0.001) according to the type of allograft inflammation. (ii) Allograft histology: the odds of IFTA ≥2 was higher for SC-TCMR (3.7 [1.3-10.4]; P = 0.04) but was not significant for C-TCMR (3.1 [1.0-9.4]; P = 0.26), and AMR (2.5 [0.5-12.8]; P = 0.84) compared with NI group, and (iii) graft loss: C-TCMR accounted for the largest number of graft losses and impending graft losses on long-term follow-up. Graft loss among patient with AMR was numerically higher but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The type of kidney allograft inflammation predicted posttransplant eGFR, cumulative chronic allograft score/IFTA ≥2 at 12 mo, and graft loss.

Optimizing Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Adults With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

PURPOSE: The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel (CTL019) has an 81% response rate in children with relapsed or chemotherapy refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a life-threatening treatment-related toxicity that limits the full therapeutic potential in adults. We report outcomes for adults with r/r ALL treated with an optimized CTL019 dosing and CRS management strategy. METHODS: Adults with r/r B-cell ALL received CTL019 in 1 of 2 trials. Patients received lymphodepletion followed by CTL019 as either a one-time infusion or fractionated infusions split over 3 days (day 1, 10%; day 2, 30%; day 3, 60%), which allowed for day 2 and day 3 doses to be held for early CRS. Total planned CTL019 dose varied with adaptive protocol modifications in response to efficacy and CRS toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-five adults with r/r ALL received CTL019 in 1 of 3 dosing cohorts. The low-dose cohort (n = 9) received single or fractionated dosing and had manageable toxicity with a 33% complete remission (CR) rate. In the high-dose single infusion cohort, 3 of 6 patients with refractory CRS concurrent with culture-positive sepsis died, and 3 achieved CR. The 20 patients in the high-dose fractionated (HDF) cohort had a 90% CR rate and manageable CRS. The HDF cohort had the highest survival, with a 2-year overall survival of 73% (95% CI, 46% to 88%) and event-free survival of 49.5% (95% CI, 21% to 73%). CONCLUSION: Fractionated dosing of CTL019 with intrapatient dose modification optimizes safety without compromising efficacy in adults with r/r ALL.

The Impact of Early Clinical and Subclinical T Cell-mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of clinical and subclinical T cell-mediated rejection (C-TCMR and SC-TCMR) on allograft histology, function, and progression. METHODS: Adult kidney recipients with 2 protocol biopsies were divided into No-TCMR on biopsies (n = 104), SC-TCMR (n = 56), and C-TCMR (n = 32) in at least 1 biopsy. Chronicity (ci + ct + cg + cv) scores, renal function, and the burden of renal disease measured by area under the curve (serum creatinine, mg mo/dL) were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar except for mean donor age and Kidney Donor Profile index scores. Patients with C-TCMR had higher mean serum creatinine, lower mean estimated glomerular filtration rate, and higher area under the curve with 95% confidence interval (75.2 [67.7-82.7]) as opposed to patients with SC-TCMR and No-TCMR (58.3 [53.6-62.9], 65.1 [58.8-71.5]), P = 0.0004. Chronicity scores were higher at 3 months in C-TCMR (2.30 ± 1.58) compared with SC-TCMR (2.02 ± 1.42) and No-TCMR (1.31 ± 1.18), P = 0.0001 and also at 12 months. At last follow-up, 18.8% patients with C-TCMR had ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from 3 months compared with 7% and 1% among No-TCMR and SC-TCMR groups (P = 0.038). Multivariate analyses revealed higher odds of Δ-creatinine ≥ 0.5 mg/dL from 3 months to last follow-up for C-TCMR (3.39 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-9.20]) versus No-TCMR (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients with C-/SC-TCMR have heightened early allograft chronicity and worse renal function compared with those with No-TCMR. Progressive renal dysfunction was noted among patients with C-TCMR as opposed to SC-TCMR and No-TCMR.

Improving the Safety of Oral Chemotherapy at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: Over the last decade, the use of oral chemotherapy (OC) for the treatment of cancer has dramatically increased. Despite their route of administration, OCs pose many of the same risks as intravenous agents. In this quality improvement project, we sought to examine our current process for the prescription of OC at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania and to improve on its safety. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team that included oncologists, advanced-practice providers, and pharmacists was formed to analyze the current state of our OC practice. Using Lean Six Sigma quality improvement tools, we identified a lack of pharmacist review of the OC prescription as an area for improvement. To address these deficiencies, we used our electronic medical system to route OC orders placed by treating providers to an oncology-specific outpatient pharmacist at the Abramson Cancer Center for review. RESULTS: Over 7 months, 63 orders for OC were placed for 45 individual patients. Of the 63 orders, all were reviewed by pharmacists, and, as a result, 22 interventions were made (35%). Types of interventions included dosage adjustment (one of 22), identification of an interacting drug (nine of 22), and recommendations for additional drug monitoring (12 of 22). CONCLUSION: OC poses many of the same risks as intravenous chemotherapy and should be prescribed and reviewed with the same oversight. At our institution, involvement of an oncology-trained pharmacist in the review of OC led to meaningful interventions in one third of the orders.

Kidney Transplant Survival: Transforming Early Post-Transplant Opportunities to Long-Term Success.

Substantial strides have been made in improving the short-term success after kidney transplantation. Although there has been some progress, there has not been a robust improvement with respect to long-term outcomes. However, there remain many potentially modifiable transplant-specific risks to long-term patient and graft survival. In this chapter, we detail the current state of five important short-term transplant-specific clinical events. The early post-transplant events that negatively impact long-term survival discussed in this chapter are: acute T cell mediated rejection, acute antibody mediated rejection, delayed graft function, post-transplant viral infections, and recurrent and de novo diseases after transplantation. This chapter focuses on unmet needs and outlines important goals, specific to each of the topics, that hold promise for achieving better long-term graft survival in kidney transplant patients. Consistent across all five areas are: the need for better standardization and improvement in diagnosis and testing, identification of relevant clinical surrogate markers in the design of new studies, newer immunosuppressive agents, anti-viral agents and targeted therapy for certain diseases, and innovative newer clinical trials. A multifaceted approach will further enhance long-term kidney transplant survival.

Resistant hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea in the setting of kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and resistant hypertension in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: We examined sleep parameters and blood pressure (BP) in 224 community-based, non-CKD participants from the Sleep-SCORE study: 88 nondialysis-dependent CKD and 95 ESRD participants. Unattended home polysomnography with standardized scoring protocols and automated BP monitors were used. Resistant hypertension was defined as a BP of at least 140/90  mmHg despite at least three antihypertensive drugs. RESULTS: Mean SBP of the CKD and ESRD groups were significantly higher than that of the non-CKD group [148.2 (23.8), 144.5 (26.7) vs. 132.2  mmHg (26.7), respectively; P < 0.0001] despite the use of more antihypertensive medications. The CKD and ESRD groups had higher rates of resistant hypertension than the non-CKD group (41.4, 22.6 vs. 6.7%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The severity of sleep apnea was associated with a higher risk of resistant hypertension. Although resistant hypertension was associated with severe sleep apnea in participants with ESRD [odds ratio (OR) 7.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-23.2), there was no significant association in the non-CKD (OR 3.5, 95% CI 0.8-15.4) or CKD groups (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-3.7) after accounting for case-mix. CONCLUSION: The association between resistant hypertension and sleep apnea appeared robust in ESRD. OSA may contribute to resistant hypertension or both may be linked to a common underlying process such as volume excess. Future studies in patients with kidney disease should further characterize the resistant hypertension-OSA relationship and determine whether treatment of underlying mechanisms may improve outcomes.

Meta-analysis 101: what you want to know in the era of comparative effectiveness.

In the era of "comparative effectiveness" research, each of the major stakeholders in healthcare-payors, patients, providers, and government-face a similar challenge. When making a decision about whether a new device, drug, or a diagnostic modality should be considered for use or coverage, what choices are best supported by the evidence? Medical evidence is defined by randomized controlled trials and by observational studies that vary greatly in their design, the accuracy of their analyses, and the relevance of their conclusions and recommendations. Hence, key decision makers increasingly rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses to facilitate the interpretation and application of research evidence. Knowing how to evaluate meta-analyses and understanding the potential pitfalls of the method are crucial for those involved in designing drug benefits. The authors highlight the process, strengths, and weaknesses of meta-analysis and explain how to judge the value of the results.