15 research outputs found
A Novel Quantification Method for Determining Previously Undetected Silent Infarcts on MR-perfusion in Patients Following Carotid Endarterectomy
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the post-operative Magnetic Resonance Perfusion (MRP) scans of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), using a novel image-analysis algorithm, to determine if post-operative neurocognitive decline is associated with cerebral blood flow changes. CEA procedure reduces the risk of stroke in appropriately selected patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. However, 25% of patients experience subtle cognitive deficits after CEA compared to a control group. It was hypothesized that abnormalities in cerebral blood flow (CBF) are responsible for these cognitive deficits. A novel algorithm for analyzing MRperfusion (MRP) scans to identify and quantify the amount of CBF asymmetry in each hemisphere was developed and to quantify the degree of relative difference between three corresponding vascular regions in the ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres, the Relative Difference Map (RDM). Patients undergoing CEA and spine surgery (controls) were examined preoperatively, and one day postoperatively with a battery of neuropsychometric (NPM) tests, and labeled “injured” patients with significant cognitive deficits, and “normal” if they demonstrated no decline in neurocognitive function. There are apparently significant RDM differences with MRP scans between the two hemispheres in patients with cognitive deficits which can be used to guide expert reviews of the imagery. The proposed methodology aids in the analysis of MRP parameters in patients with cognitive impairment
Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries
Abstract
Background
Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.
Methods
This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries.
Results
In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.
Conclusion
This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries
Phase 1b Dose-Escalation Study of Sonidegib (LDE225) in Combination with Ruxolitinib (INC424) in Patients with Myelofibrosis
Recommended from our members
A Controlled Prospective Study of Neuropsychological Dysfunction Following Carotid Endarterectomy
BACKGROUND: Although subtle cognitive injury as revealed by neuropsychological testing occurs in a substantial number of patients following carotid endarterectomy (CEA), there is controversy about whether this finding is a result of the surgery or the anesthesia. OBJECTIVES: To examine the changes in neuropsychological test performance in patients following CEA vs a control group of patients older than 60 years following spine surgery, so as to determine whether neuropsychological dysfunction after CEA is a result of surgery or anesthesia. METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA (n = 80) and lumbar spine surgery (n = 25) were assessed with a battery of neuropsychological tests preoperatively and on postoperative days 1 and 30. The neuropsychological performance of patients in the control group was used to normalize performance for patients in the CEA group, by calculating z scores using the mean and SD of the change scores in the control group. Significant cognitive dysfunction was defined as performance that exceeded 2 SDs above the mean performance of patients in the control group. RESULTS: Postoperative days 1 and 30 total deficit scores were significantly worse in the CEA group compared with the controls. When individual test results were examined, the CEA group performed significantly worse than the controls on the Rey Complex Figure test and Halstead-Reitan Trails B on day 1, and on the Rey Complex Figure on day 30. Overall, cognitive dysfunction was seen in 22 patients (28%) in the CEA group on day 1 and in 11 (23%) of 48 patients on day 30. CONCLUSIONS: Subtle cognitive decline following CEA occurs and persists for at least several weeks after surgery. This decline was absent in a control grou
Neutrophil and platelet increases with luspatercept in lower-risk MDS:secondary endpoints from the MEDALIST trial
Recommended from our members
Hematologic Improvement-Neutrophil and -Platelet in the MEDALIST Trial: Multilineage Data from a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Luspatercept to Treat Anemia in Patients with Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) with Ring Sideroblasts (RS) Who Require Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusions
Introduction: Lower-risk MDS is characterized by anemia and ineffective erythropoiesis leading to RBC transfusion dependence. Effective treatment for anemia remains an unmet medical need. Patients with MDS may also experience additional cytopenias that may complicate treatment and contribute to infections and bleeding events.
Here, we report hematologic improvement (HI) outcomes for patients in the MEDALIST trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631070), a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of luspatercept, a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis.
Methods: Eligible patients in the MEDALIST trial were adults with anemia due to Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS according to the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System; were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs); and required RBC transfusions. Patients received luspatercept (starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg and titration up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed) or placebo subcutaneously every 3 weeks for ≥ 24 weeks. Platelet and neutrophil counts were assessed by the central laboratory. Secondary endpoints included HI-neutrophil (HI-N) and -platelet (HI-P) responses, using International Working Group 2006 criteria, over any consecutive 56-day period. Mean changes from baseline in platelets and neutrophils were also evaluated.
Results*: A total of 94.8% patients in the luspatercept arm and 97.4% in the placebo arm had refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and RS at baseline. Mean neutrophil and platelet counts at baseline for patients in the luspatercept arm were 2.8 x 109/L and 259 x 109/L, respectively, and in the placebo arm were 2.7 x 109/L and 252 x 109/L, respectively. Neutropenia (< 1 x 109/L) was confirmed at baseline in 15 (9.8%) and 10 (13.2%) patients in the luspatercept and placebo arms, respectively. Fifty-one (33.3%) patients in the luspatercept arm and 22 (28.9%) in the placebo arm received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in combination with ESAs prior to randomization. A total of 8 (5.2%) and 6 (7.9%) patients receiving luspatercept and placebo, respectively, had baseline thrombocytopenia (< 100 x 109/L); no patients received prior platelet transfusions.
Fifteen (9.8%) and 10 (13.2%) patients in the luspatercept and placebo arms, respectively, were evaluable for HI-N (i.e. baseline neutrophils < 1 x 109/L); 3/15 (20%) of those receiving luspatercept and 1/10 (10%) of those receiving placebo achieved HI-N in Weeks 1-48. Among patients who were evaluable for HI-P (i.e. baseline platelets < 100 x 109/L), 5/8 (62.5%) of those receiving luspatercept and 2/6 (33%) of those receiving placebo achieved HI-P in Weeks 1-48 (Table). None of the luspatercept HI-P responders received platelet transfusions.
Mean changes from baseline in neutrophils of 0.94 x 109/L with luspatercept and 0.04 x 109/L with placebo were observed at Week 15, with early increases reported for luspatercept by Day 8 (0.86 vs 0.08 x 109/L for placebo). Mean increases in neutrophils at Day 8 occurred in both luspatercept responders (by MEDALIST primary endpoint; 1.0 x 109/L) and non-responders (0.8 x 109/L). Mean changes from baseline in platelets of 29 x 109/L were observed with luspatercept and 0.9 x 109/L with placebo by Week 12, but early increases were observed with luspatercept by Day 8 (18 vs 3 x 109/L for placebo) and mean increases in platelets at Day 8 occurred in both luspatercept responders (21.4 x 109/L) and non-responders (16.5 x 109/L).
No patients in either arm experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent thrombocytopenia. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 1 (0.7%) patient receiving luspatercept and 1 (1.3%) patient receiving placebo.
Conclusions: Although only a minority of patients were evaluable for HI-P/HI-N response based on entry criteria for the study, luspatercept treatment resulted in a mean increase from baseline in platelet and neutrophil counts in most patients overall vs placebo, regardless of response status. These improvements were observed early following treatment initiation and then stabilized. Luspatercept did not contribute to the worsening of cytopenias vs placebo.
*Data cutoff: May 8, 2018.
Disclosures
Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mufti:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Buckstein:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Santini:Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Finelli:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ito:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sinsimer:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Platzbecker:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Komrokji:Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; DSI: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau.
OffLabel Disclosure:
Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis
Recommended from our members
MDS-179: Clinical Benefit of Luspatercept in Patients with Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (LR-MDS) and High Transfusion Burden (HTB) in the Phase 3 MEDALIST Study
Patients with LR-MDS and anemia who have HTB have very few treatment options and represent a patient population with significant clinical unmet need.
To evaluate the clinical benefit of luspatercept in HTB patients with LR-MDS from the MEDALIST trial.
Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years; had IPSS-R-defined LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS); were refractory, intolerant, or unlikely to respond to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (serum erythropoietin > 200 U/L); and had anemia requiring regular RBC transfusions. All patients provided informed written consent. 229 patients were randomized 2:1 to luspatercept (starting dose 1.0 mg/kg; titration up to 1.75 mg/kg allowed) or placebo subcutaneously every 3 weeks. HTB was defined as ≥6 RBC units transfused/8 weeks.
153 patients were randomized to luspatercept and 76 to placebo; 66 and 33 had HTB at baseline, respectively. As of 01 JULY, 2019, 23/66 (34.8%) and 12/66 (18.2%) luspatercept-treated HTB patients achieved a ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in RBC units transfused over at least 24 weeks compared to baseline, respectively, versus 3/33 (9.1%; P=0.0063) and 1/33 (3.0%; P=0.0363) HTB placebo patients. 6/66 (9.1%) luspatercept-treated HTB patients and 1/33 (3.0%) placebo-treated HTB patient achieved RBC-transfusion independence (RBC-TI) ≥ 8 weeks in Weeks 1–24 (P=0.2699). Median (range) time to achieve RBC-TI was 50.0 days (1.0–100.0) with luspatercept; median (range) duration of longest RBC-TI episode in luspatercept-treated patients was 42.6 weeks (8.4–81.1). Mean number of transfusion events in Weeks 1–24 was 9.2 for luspatercept-treated patients versus 12.4 in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.794 [0.660–0.956]). 65/66 (98.5%) luspatercept- and 29/33 (87.9%) placebo-treated HTB patients reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 11/66 (16.7%) and 3/33 (9.1%) patients, respectively, reported ≥1 TEAE leading to discontinuation. 28/66 (42.4%) luspatercept- and 15/33 (45.5%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥1 serious TEAE. The incidence of grade 3–4 TEAEs in HTB patients was similar between treatment arms (53.0% for luspatercept vs 54.5% for placebo).
HTB patients with LR-MDS with RS receiving luspatercept had clinically significant reductions in RBC transfusion burden and reduced number of transfusion events. Luspatercept was well tolerated in HTB patients, consistent with the overall study population
Recommended from our members
Assessment of Longer-Term Efficacy and Safety in the Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled MEDALIST Trial of Luspatercept to Treat Anemia in Patients (Pts) with Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) with Ring Sideroblasts (RS) Who Require Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusions
Introduction: Few treatment options are available to RBC transfusion-dependent pts with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) who are refractory/ineligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds select TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis.
In the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MEDALIST study (NCT02631070), luspatercept significantly reduced transfusion burden vs placebo. Longer-term efficacy analyses of the MEDALIST study (data cutoff Jan 7, 2019), including multiple responses, and safety are presented here.
Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years of age with IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS (World Health Organization 2016 criteria); were refractory, intolerant, or unlikely to respond to ESAs (serum erythropoietin > 200 U/L); and required regular RBC transfusions. Pts were randomized 2:1 to luspatercept (1.0 mg/kg titrated up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed) or placebo, subcutaneously every 3 weeks (wks).
This analysis assessed the achievement and number of individual response periods of RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) ≥ 8 wks. Clinical benefit, defined as achieving RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks and/or modified hematologic improvement-erythroid (HI-E) response per International Working Group 2006 criteria, was also assessed, along with total duration of clinical benefit (time from achieving clinical benefit to discontinuation due to loss of benefit, adverse events [AEs], or other reasons). Longer-term efficacy and safety were also evaluated.
Results: Pts were assessed for RBC transfusion burden/8 wks in the 16 wks before randomization: 66 pts received 2 to < 4 U RBCs (30.1% and 26.3% of pts receiving luspatercept and placebo, respectively), 64 received ≥ 4 to < 6 U (26.8% and 30.2%, respectively), and 99 received ≥ 6 U (43.1% and 43.4%, respectively); both arms had a median baseline burden of 5 RBC U/8 wks.
Compared with our previous analysis and earlier data cutoff of May 8, 2018 (Fenaux P, et al. Blood. 2018;132:1), we now report that as of Jan 7, 2019, 72 (47.1%) pts treated with luspatercept and 12 (15.8%) treated with placebo achieved RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks. Analysis of multiple response periods of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks in the luspatercept responders (i.e. initial RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks, followed by transfusion, followed by another period of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks) demonstrated that 48 (66.7%) pts had ≥ 2 separate response periods, 22 (30.6%) had ≥ 3, 12 (16.7%) had ≥ 4 , and 7 (9.7%) had ≥ 5. Of the 12 pts achieving RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks with placebo, 4 (33.3%) had ≥ 2 responses; none had > 3.
Overall, 48 (31.4%) pts receiving luspatercept and none receiving placebo remained on treatment as of the Jan 7, 2019 data cutoff. Median treatment duration was 50.9 (range 5.9-147.0) wks in pts receiving luspatercept vs 24.0 (range 7.4-103.0) wks in pts receiving placebo. Median duration of the longest period of RBC-TI ≥ 8 wks during Wks 1-48 was 30.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.6-50.9) wks with luspatercept and 18.6 (95% CI 10.9-not evaluable) wks with placebo. Median total duration of clinical benefit was 83.6 and 26.8 wks for pts responding to luspatercept (n = 97) and placebo (n = 20), respectively. Of the 97 luspatercept-treated pts evaluable for clinical benefit, median duration of clinical benefit in pts with baseline transfusion burden of 4 to < 6 U/8 wks was 87.9 (range 13-125) wks, of < 4 U/8 wks was 84.7 (range 21-147) wks, and of ≥ 6 U/8 wks was 64.9 (range 8-122) wks. Twelve luspatercept-treated pts did not require a transfusion after the first dose of luspatercept up to Wk 48 or until time of analysis; as of Jan 7, 2019 data cutoff, 3 (25%) of those pts maintained response.
AEs occurring more frequently with luspatercept vs placebo (fatigue, diarrhea, asthenia, dizziness) occurred early (Cycles 1-4), were mainly grade 1 or 2, decreased over time, and were not associated with a higher dose level. Progression to acute myeloid leukemia was similar in pts receiving luspatercept (n = 3 [2.0%]) and those receiving placebo (n = 1 [1.3%]).
Conclusions: Most LR-MDS pts achieving RBC-TI and/or HI-E with luspatercept in the MEDALIST study had multiple responses with durable clinical benefit superior to that of pts receiving placebo, including those with a high baseline transfusion burden. AEs were mainly grade 1 or 2, decreased over time, and were not correlated with a higher dose level.
Disclosures
Fenaux: Aprea: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mufti:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Buckstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Finelli:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ilhan:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:DSI: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zeidan:Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Verma:Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ito:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sinsimer:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Platzbecker:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.
OffLabel Disclosure:
Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis
Recommended from our members
Clinical benefit of luspatercept in patients (pts) with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) and high transfusion burden in the phase III MEDALIST study
7554
Background: Anemic pts with LR-MDS and high baseline RBC transfusion burden (HTB) have very few treatment options and constitute a pt population with significant clinical unmet need. In this secondary analysis of the MEDALIST trial (NCT02631070), we sought to evaluate the clinical benefit of luspatercept in this pt population. Methods: MEDALIST is a randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of luspatercept in pts with anemia due to LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS) (Fenaux & Platzbecker et al. NEJM. 2020;382:140-51). Pts were aged ≥ 18 years; had IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS; were refractory, intolerant, or unlikely to respond to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (serum erythropoietin > 200 U/L); and had anemia requiring regular RBC transfusions (≥ 2 units/8 weeks in the 16 weeks prior to randomization). 229 pts were randomized 2:1 to luspatercept (starting dose 1.0 mg/kg; titration up to 1.75 mg/kg allowed) or PBO subcutaneously every 3 weeks. HTB was defined as ≥ 6 RBC units transfused/8 weeks. Results: 153 pts were randomized to luspatercept and 76 to PBO. As of July 1, 2019, 23/66 (34.8%) and 12/66 (18.2%) HTB pts receiving luspatercept achieved a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction from baseline in RBC transfusion burden over ≥ 24 weeks, respectively, vs 3/33 (9.1%; P = 0.0063) and 1/33 (3.0%; P = 0.0363) pts receiving PBO. 6/66 (9.1%) luspatercept-treated HTB pts and 1/33 (3.0%) PBO-treated HTB pt achieved RBC-transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 8 weeks in Weeks 1–24 ( P = 0.2699). The median (range) time to achieve RBC-TI with luspatercept was 50.0 days (1.0–100.0) and median (range) duration of RBC-TI in the luspatercept arm was 42.6 weeks (8.4–81.1). Mean number of transfusion events in Weeks 1–24 was 9.2 in the luspatercept arm vs 12.4 in the PBO arm (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.794 [0.660–0.956]). 65/66 (98.5%) luspatercept- and 29/33 (87.9%) PBO-treated HTB pts reported ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 11/66 (16.7%) and 3/33 (9.1%) pts, respectively, reported ≥ 1 TEAE leading to discontinuation. 28/66 (42.4%) luspatercept- and 15/33 (45.5%) PBO-treated pts reported ≥ 1 serious AE. Incidence of grade 3–4 TEAEs in HTB pts was similar between arms (53.0% luspatercept vs 54.5% PBO). Conclusions: Luspatercept treatment resulted in clinically significant reductions in transfusion burden and reduced number of transfusion events in HTB pts with LR-MDS with RS, with an acceptable safety profile consistent with the overall population. Clinical trial information: NCT02631070
Recommended from our members
Luspatercept Significantly Reduces Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusion Burden, Regardless of Gene Mutation Frequency, Spectrum, and Prognostic Significance, Among Patients (Pts) with LR-MDS Enrolled in the MEDALIST Trial
Background: Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that binds TGF-β superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis. The phase 3 MEDALIST trial evaluated luspatercept in pts with RBC transfusion-dependent, IPSS-R-defined very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS+) who were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. This study explored associations of gene mutations, as analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), with response to luspatercept, as well as dynamics of gene mutations on therapy in MEDALIST pts.
Methods: DNA was isolated from bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells from 222 of 229 pts enrolled in the study (148 luspatercept, 74 placebo) at screening and, when available, following treatment. NGS of 23 MDS-relevant genes was performed at screening and every 24 weeks; mean coverage was 1,000-fold and the variant allele frequency (VAF) cutoff was ≥ 1%. BM cell populations were analyzed by cytomorphology. Response criterion of RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) of ≥ 8 weeks within the first 24 weeks of treatment was used for correlative analyses.
Results: Mutations in SF3B1 were found in 91.0% of pts analyzed at screening (median VAF 42%, range 6-71%), consistent with the study population being RS+. Overall, a median of 2 (range 0-5) of the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed were mutated per pt. In addition to SF3B1, the most frequently mutated genes were TET2 (41.9%), DNMT3A (18.9%), ASXL1 (13.1%), and SRSF2 (8.1%). Mutation profiles were similar to those found in previous studies of refractory anemia with RS (RARS; Malcovati L, et al. Blood. 2015;126:233-41) and balanced between luspatercept and placebo arms.
Numbers of mutated genes at baseline were distributed similarly in luspatercept responders (R) and non-responders (NR) (Figure A), and comparable response rates were achieved irrespective of number of mutations, with response rates of 36.4%, 34.9%, 42.4%, and 33.3% for pts with 1 mutation, 2 mutations, 3 mutations, and 4 or 5 mutations in the 23 MDS-relevant genes analyzed, respectively. Response to luspatercept was independent of the presence of mutations in any of the genes analyzed individually (Figure B) or when grouped by functional categories (e.g. spliceosome, epigenetic regulation, transcription factor, etc.) (Figure C). Circos plots of co-occurring mutations showed similar mutation profiles in R and NR (Figure D). Response rates were also similar regardless of baseline SF3B1 allelic burden (R: 43%, NR: 42%; P = 0.11). At baseline, BM erythroid precursors were higher in R (R: 32.8%, NR: 26%; P = 0.008; while R and NR had similar levels of RS+ cells [R: 80%, NR: 84%; P = 0.25], Figure E), consistent with the postulated activity of luspatercept on the erythroid lineage.
When comparing the frequency of mutation changes in luspatercept- vs placebo-treated pts at week 24 of the study, no statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of newly acquired mutations (13/126 [10.3%] pts in luspatercept vs 8/64 [12.5%] pts in placebo, P = 0.63) or mutation losses (4/126 [3.2%] in luspatercept vs 5/64 [7.8%] in placebo, P = 0.17). Evaluation of changes in allele burden (median VAF at week 24 vs baseline) for mutations in genes associated with adverse prognosis (ASXL1, SRSF2, U2AF1, NRAS, IDH2, GATA2, TP53, RUNX1, and EZH2; Bejar R. Curr Opin Hematol. 2017;24:73-8) showed no change between luspatercept- or placebo-treated pts (1.01-fold, n = 58 and 0.95-fold, n = 19, respectively, P = 0.69).
Conclusions: Pts enrolled in the MEDALIST study had mutations consistent with RS+, lower-risk MDS with a preponderance of SF3B1 mutations; genes associated with poor prognosis (and other genes) were balanced between study arms. RBC-TI responses with luspatercept were achieved regardless of SF3B1 allelic burden, number of baseline mutations, and presence of individual mutations, including adverse mutations, or co-mutations.
Disclosures
Platzbecker: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dunshee:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Komrokji:DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau. Mufti:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Garcia-Manero:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sekeres:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. See:Celgene Corporation: Other: Contractor. Tsai:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Risueño:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Named in Celgene patent filings related to predictive patient response biomarkers in hematological malignancies. Ma:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schwickart:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Laadem:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Menezes:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. MacBeth:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.: Equity Ownership; Fibrogen, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Reynolds:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. List:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding.
OffLabel Disclosure:
Luspatercept is an investigational therapy that is not approved for any use in any country. Luspatercept is currently being evaluated for potential use in patients with anemia due to myelodysplastic syndromes, beta-thalassemia, or myelofibrosis