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).

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.

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 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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of selumetinib in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 on a phase 1/2 trial for inoperable plexiform neurofibromas.

BACKGROUND: Selumetinib shrank inoperable symptomatic plexiform neurofibromas (PN) in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and provided clinical benefit for many in our previously published phase 1/2 clinical trials (SPRINT, NCT01362803). At the data cutoff (DCO) of the prior publications, 65% of participants were still receiving treatment. This report presents up to 5 years of additional safety and efficacy data from these studies. METHODS: This manuscript includes data from the phase 1 and phase 2, stratum 1 study which included participants with clinically significant PN-related morbidity. Participants received continuous selumetinib dosing (1 cycle = 28 days). Safety and efficacy data through February 27, 2021 are included. PN response assessed by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging analysis: Confirmed partial response (cPR) ≥20% decrease from baseline on 2 consecutive evaluations. Phase 2 participants completed patient-reported outcome measures assessing tumor pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale-11) and interference of pain in daily life (pain interference index). RESULTS: For the 74 children (median age 10.3 years; range 3-18.5) enrolled, overall cPR rate was 70% (52/74); median duration of treatment was 57.5 cycles (range 1-100). Responses were generally sustained with 59% (44) lasting ≥ 12 cycles. Tumor pain intensity (n = 19, P = .015) and pain interference (n = 18, P = .0059) showed durable improvement from baseline to 48 cycles. No new safety signals were identified; however, some developed known selumetinib-related adverse events (AEs) for the first time after several years of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With up to 5 years of additional selumetinib treatment, most children with NF1-related PN had durable tumor shrinkage and sustained improvement in pain beyond that previously reported at 1 year. No new safety signals were identified; however, ongoing monitoring for known selumetinib-related AEs is needed while treatment continues.

Antihypertensive effect of telmisartan versus perindopril in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: We performed this meta-analysis determining the antihypertensive effect of telmisartan versus perindopril in patients with essential hypertension. BACKGROUND: The comparison of antihypertensive effects between telmisartan and perindopril were controversial. METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched for all published studies. RESULTS: The antihypertensive effects were assessed in 753 patients included in 7 trials with a mean follow-up of 20 ± 16 weeks. There was no significant difference between telmisartan and perindopril in reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP, weighted mean differences (WMD) 0.02 (95% confidence interval (CI), ‒2.78, 2.81) mm Hg, p > 0.05). The reduction of diastolic BP (DBP) treated with telmisartan was greater than perindopril in these patients (WMD ‒2.05 (95% CI, ‒2.60, ‒1.49) mm Hg, p < 0.001). Considering the effects of different doses on BP reduction, a sub-analysis was performed. The reduction of DBP treated with 40 mg/day telmisartan was greater than 4‒5 mg/day perindopril (WMD ‒2.18 (95% CI, ‒2.83, ‒1.53) mm Hg, p 0.05). CONCLUSION: The reduction of DBP is greater treated with telmisartan than perindopril in patients with essential hypertension (Tab. 2, Fig. 4, Ref. 34). Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: essential hypertension, blood pressure, telmisartan, perindopril, meta-analysis.

Abemaciclib-associated Diarrhea: An Exploratory Analysis of Real-life Data.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Abemaciclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor approved in combination with endocrine therapy for treating hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early and advanced breast cancer patients. The safety profile of abemaciclib is characterized by frequent gastrointestinal toxicity, especially diarrhea. Therefore, we performed an exploratory analysis of clinical factors that may be potentially associated with diarrhea in patients treated with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Factors potentially predisposing to diarrhea were selected, such as age ≥70 years, concomitant medications and diseases, diet, and use of laxatives. These variables were correlated with the onset of grade 2/3 diarrhea in a cohort of patients treated with abemaciclib from advanced breast cancer. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. Sensitivity and specificity were tested using the ROC curve. RESULTS: Eighty women with advanced breast cancer were included in the study. The univariate analysis found a statistically significant correlation between grade 2/3 diarrhea and age ≥70 years, polypharmacy, and concomitant gastrointestinal diseases (p<0.05). In the multivariate analysis, the number of risk factors significantly correlated with the outcome of interest (p<0.0001). ROC analysis showed our model's 82% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CONCLUSION: Taking into account specific pre-existing factors, it is possible to estimate the risk of diarrhea in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative - advanced breast cancer patients, candidates for abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy. In these subjects, implementing proactive prevention and adopting a dose-escalation strategy may represent practical approaches to decrease the abemaciclib toxicity burden.

Efficacy of Once-Daily Ophthalmic Bilastine for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Dose-Finding Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bilastine is a nonsedating second-generation antihistamine for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. Our study aimed to evaluate the optimal dose, efficacy, and safety of a newly developed once-daily preservative-free ophthalmic formulation of bilastine for allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: Our phase 2, single-center, double-masked, randomized trial compared the efficacy of 3 doses of a bilastine ophthalmic formulation (0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6%) with that of vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in ocular itching. The Ora-CAC Conjunctival Allergen Challenge model was used to assess ocular and nasal symptoms at the onset of action (15 minutes) and at 8- and 16-hours after treatment. Tolerance and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 121 adults with seasonal and/or perennial ocular allergy were randomized. Bilastine ophthalmic formulations 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6% were significantly superior (P>.001) to vehicle for the treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes after challenge at onset of action (15 minutes) and at 8 hours after treatment. Bilastine 0.6% was also effective at 16 hours after treatment. Treatment differences for bilastine 0.6% were statistically significant (P<.001) compared to vehicle at all timepoints for tearing, eyelid swelling, and nasal symptoms. No relevant adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: All the tested ophthalmic bilastine doses were efficacious for rapid reduction of ocular itching. The 0.6% formulation was effective up to 16 hours after treatment, making it suitable for once-daily administration. The new formulation was safe and well tolerated.

Maribavir for the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Adult Transplant Recipients: A Review of the Literature and Practical Considerations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of maribavir for management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplant recipients. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960 to early July 2022) was performed using the following search terms: maribavir, 1263W94, and cytomegalovirus. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All relevant English-language studies were reviewed and considered, with a focus on phase 3 trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Maribavir, an orally available benzimidazole riboside with minimal adverse effects, was originally studied for universal prophylaxis in phase 3 trials but failed to demonstrate noninferiority over placebo and oral ganciclovir. It was effective for preemptive treatment in a dose-finding Phase 2 study. Maribavir is FDA approved for treatment of refractory/resistant CMV infection based on improved response rate at 8 weeks compared with investigator-assigned therapy (IAT) when initiated at median viral loads less than approximately 10 000 IU/mL (55.7% vs 23.9%, P < 0.001). Recurrence after 8-week treatment for refractory/resistant CMV was high (maribavir 50% vs IAT 39%). Significant drug interactions exist and must be managed by a pharmacotherapy expert to prevent harm. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: The addition of maribavir to the antiviral armamentarium should improve the management of refractory/resistant CMV, allowing early transition from toxic, high-cost, intravenous agents such as foscarnet and outpatient management. Optimal timing of initiation, duration, and potential alternative uses are unclear. CONCLUSION: Future studies are needed to fully elucidate the role of maribavir in the management of CMV after transplant.

Efficacy and safety of lomitapide in familial chylomicronaemia syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial chylomicronaemia syndrome (FCS) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder, resulting in elevated triglycerides (TGs), abdominal pain and pancreatitis. Treatment options are limited. Lomitapide, a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Whether its therapeutic use may be extended to FCS remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lomitapide in adult patients with FCS. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm 'LOCHNES' study of lomitapide in FCS enrolled patients >18 years with genetically confirmed FCS, elevated fasting TG ≥ 750 mg/dL and history of pancreatitis. Patients were administered lomitapide to the maximum tolerated dose for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change in TGs from baseline to Week 26. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled with median baseline TG levels 1803.5 mg/dL (97.5% CI, 1452-2391 mg/dL). At Week 26, median fasting TGs were reduced to 305 mg/dL (97.5% CI 219-801 mg/dL; 70.5% reduction); median lomitapide dose was 35 mg/day; 13 patients achieved TGs ≤750 mg/dL. Adverse events were mild to moderate and mainly related to gastrointestinal tolerability. Liver imaging at baseline and Week 26 revealed hepatic fat increases from median 12.0%-32.5%, while median hepatic stiffness remained normal. No patient experienced acute pancreatitis or severe abdominal pain during lomitapide treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lomitapide is effective and well tolerated in reducing TGs in FCS patients with a history of pancreatitis. Larger studies are warranted to determine lomitapide effectiveness in FCS.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.