Phase 2 Study of Pomalidomide (CC-4047) Monotherapy for Children and Young Adults With Recurrent or Progressive Primary Brain Tumors

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of recurrent primary pediatric brain tumors remains a major challenge, with most children succumbing to their disease. We conducted a prospective phase 2 study investigating the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide (POM) in children and young adults with recurrent and progressive primary brain tumors. BACKGROUND: METHODS: Patients with recurrent and progressive high-grade glioma (HGG), diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), ependymoma, or medulloblastoma received POM 2.6 mg/m2/day (the recommended phase 2 dose [RP2D]) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. A Simon’s Optimal 2-stage design was used to determine efficacy. Primary endpoints included objective response (OR) and long-term stable disease (LTSD) rates. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: 46 patients were evaluable for response (HGG, n = 19; DIPG, ependymoma, and medulloblastoma, n = 9 each). Two patients with HGG achieved OR or LTSD (10.5% [95% CI, 1.3%-33.1%]; 1 partial response and 1 LTSD) and 1 patient with ependymoma had LTSD (11.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-48.2%]). There were no ORs or LTSD in the DIPG or medulloblastoma cohorts. The median PFS for patients with HGG, DIPG, ependymoma, and medulloblastoma was 7.86, 11.29, 8.43, and 8.43 weeks, respectively. Median OS was 5.06, 3.78, 12.02, and 11.60 months, respectively. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with POM monotherapy did not meet the primary measure of success in any cohort. Future studies are needed to evaluate if POM would show efficacy in tumors with specific molecular signatures or in combination with other anticancer agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03257631; EudraCT, identifier 2016-002903-25

A Primary Culture System For Human Odontoblasts

OBJECTIVE: A subset analysis of the randomised, phase 3, MDS-004 study to evaluate outcomes in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)-defined Low-/Intermediate (Int)-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with isolated del(5q). METHODS: Patients received lenalidomide 10 mg/d (days 1-21; n = 47) or 5 mg/d (days 1-28; n = 43) on 28-d cycles or placebo (n = 45). From the placebo and lenalidomide 5 mg groups, 84% and 58% of patients, respectively, crossed over to lenalidomide 5 or 10 mg at 16 wk, respectively. RESULTS: Rates of red blood cell-transfusion independence (RBC-TI) >/=182 d were higher in the lenalidomide 10 mg (57.4%; P /=182 d vs. non-responders (P = 0.0072). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the clinical benefits and acceptable safety profile of lenalidomide in transfusion-dependent patients with IPSS-defined Low-/Int-1-risk MDS with isolated del(5q)

Response to upfront azacitidine in juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia in the AZA-JMML-001 trial

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only curative therapy for most children with juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML). Novel therapies controlling the disorder prior to HSCT are needed. We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safety and antileukemic activity of azacitidine monotherapy prior to HSCT in newly diagnosed JMML patients. Eighteen patients enrolled from September 2015 to November 2017 were treated with azacitidine (75 mg/m2) administered IV once daily on days 1 to 7 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was the number of patients with clinical complete remission (cCR) or clinical partial remission (cPR) after 3 cycles of therapy. Pharmacokinetics, genome-wide DNA-methylation levels, and variant allele frequencies of leukemia-specific index mutations were also analyzed. Sixteen patients completed 3 cycles and 5 patients completed 6 cycles. After 3 cycles, 11 patients (61%) were in cPR and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Six of 16 patients (38%) who needed platelet transfusions were transfusion-free after 3 cycles. All 7 patients with intermediate- or low-methylation signatures in genome-wide DNA-methylation studies achieved cPR. Seventeen patients received HSCT; 14 (82%) were leukemia-free at a median follow-up of 23.8 months (range, 7.0-39.3 months) after HSCT. Azacitidine was well tolerated and plasma concentration-time profiles were similar to observed profiles in adults. In conclusion, azacitidine monotherapy is a suitable option for children with newly diagnosed JMML. Although long-term safety and efficacy remain to be fully elucidated in this population, these data demonstrate that azacitidine provides valuable clinical benefit to JMML patients prior to HSCT. This trial was registered at www. clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02447666

Long-term (180-Day) outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial

Importance The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707