Repurposing metformin for cancer treatment: current clinical studies.

In recent years, several studies have presented evidence suggesting a potential role for metformin in anti-cancer therapy. Preclinical studies have demonstrated several anticancer molecular mechanisms of metformin including mTOR inhibition, cytotoxic effects, and immunomodulation. Epidemiologic data have demonstrated decreased cancer incidence and mortality in patients taking metformin. Several clinical trials, focused on evaluation of metformin as an anti-cancer agent are presently underway. Data published from a small number of completed trials has put forth intriguing results. Clinical trials in pre-surgical endometrial cancer patients exhibited a significant decrease in Ki67 with metformin monotherapy. Another interesting observation was made in patients with breast cancer, wherein a trend towards improvement in cancer proliferation markers was noted in patients without insulin resistance. Data on survival outcomes with the use of metformin as an anti-cancer agent is awaited. This manuscript will critically review the role of metformin as a potential cancer treatment

Selective inhibition of FLT3 by gilteritinib in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a multicentre, first-in-human, open-label, phase 1-2 study.

BackgroundInternal tandem duplication mutations in FLT3 are common in acute myeloid leukaemia and are associated with rapid relapse and short overall survival. The clinical benefit of FLT3 inhibitors in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia has been limited by rapid generation of resistance mutations, particularly in codon Asp835 (D835). We aimed to assess the highly selective oral FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia.MethodsIn this phase 1-2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia who either were refractory to induction therapy or had relapsed after achieving remission with previous treatment. Patients were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation or dose-expansion cohorts assigned to receive once-daily doses of oral gilteritinib (20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 450 mg). Cohort expansion was based on safety and tolerability, FLT3 inhibition in correlative assays, and antileukaemic activity. Although the presence of an FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, we required ten or more patients with locally confirmed FLT3 mutations (FLT3mut+) to be enrolled in expansion cohorts at each dose level. On the basis of emerging findings, we further expanded the 120 mg and 200 mg dose cohorts to include FLT3mut+ patients only. The primary endpoints were the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of gilteritinib. Safety and tolerability were assessed in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of gilteritinib). Responses were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and who had at least one datapoint post-treatment). Pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of the safety analysis set for which sufficient data for concentrations of gilteritinib in plasma were available to enable derivation of one or more pharmacokinetic variables. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02014558, and is ongoing.FindingsBetween Oct 15, 2013, and Aug 27, 2015, 252 adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia received oral gilteritinib once daily in one of seven dose-escalation (n=23) or dose-expansion (n=229) cohorts. Gilteritinib was well tolerated; the maximum tolerated dose was established as 300 mg/day when two of three patients enrolled in the 450 mg dose-escalation cohort had two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events irrespective of relation to treatment were febrile neutropenia (97 [39%] of 252), anaemia (61 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (33 [13%]), sepsis (28 [11%]), and pneumonia (27 [11%]). Commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (92 [37%] of 252]), anaemia (86 [34%]), fatigue (83 [33%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (65 [26%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (47 [19%]). Serious adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients were febrile neutropenia (98 [39%] of 252; five related to treatment), progressive disease (43 [17%]), sepsis (36 [14%]; two related to treatment), pneumonia (27 [11%]), acute renal failure (25 [10%]; five related to treatment), pyrexia (21 [8%]; three related to treatment), bacteraemia (14 [6%]; one related to treatment), and respiratory failure (14 [6%]). 95 people died in the safety analysis set, of which seven deaths were judged possibly or probably related to treatment (pulmonary embolism [200 mg/day], respiratory failure [120 mg/day], haemoptysis [80 mg/day], intracranial haemorrhage [20 mg/day], ventricular fibrillation [120 mg/day], septic shock [80 mg/day], and neutropenia [120 mg/day]). An exposure-related increase in inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation was noted with increasing concentrations in plasma of gilteritinib. In-vivo inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation occurred at all dose levels. At least 90% of FLT3 phosphorylation inhibition was seen by day 8 in most patients receiving a daily dose of 80 mg or higher. 100 (40%) of 249 patients in the full analysis set achieved a response, with 19 (8%) achieving complete remission, ten (4%) complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery, 46 (18%) complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery, and 25 (10%) partial remission INTERPRETATION: Gilteritinib had a favourable safety profile and showed consistent FLT3 inhibition in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. These findings confirm that FLT3 is a high-value target for treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia; based on activity data, gilteritinib at 120 mg/day is being tested in phase 3 trials.FundingAstellas Pharma, National Cancer Institute (Leukemia Specialized Program of Research Excellence grant), Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro

Pevonedistat (MLN4924), a First‐in‐Class NEDD8‐activating enzyme inhibitor, in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: a phase 1 study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111220/1/bjh13323.pd

Patient-reported symptom monitoring and adherence to therapy in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia

Background: The authors assessed the clinical utility of patient-reported symptom monitoring in the setting of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The primary objective was to evaluate adherence to therapy. Methods: The authors conducted an international prospective study that included patients with newly diagnosed, chronic-phase CML. Before clinical consultation, patients were provided a tablet computer to self-rate their symptoms, and the results were available in real time to each physician during the patient's visit. Adherence was assessed by pill count and with a validated self-reported questionnaire. The proportions of optimal responders at 3 and 6 months were assessed according to the European LeukemiaNet criteria. Results: Between July 2020 and August 2021, 94 patients with a median age of 57 years were enrolled. Pill count adherence analysis indicated that 86 of 93 evaluable patients (92.5%) took at least 90% of prescribed tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy during the 6-month observation period. The online platform was well accepted by patients and physicians. An optimal response was achieved by 69 of 79 patients (87.3%) at 3 months and by 61 of 81 patients (75.3%) at 6 months. Conclusions: Patient-reported symptom monitoring from the beginning of therapy in patients with CML may be critical to improve adherence to therapy and early molecular response rates (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04384848)

Self-management for osteoarthritis of the knee: Does mode of delivery influence outcome?

Background Self-management has become increasingly popular in the management of chronic diseases. There are many different self-management models. Meta analyses of arthritis self-management have concluded that it is difficult to recommend any one program in preference to another due to inconsistencies in the study designs used to evaluate different programs. The Stanford Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP), most commonly delivered by trained lay leaders, is a generic program widely used for people with rheumatological disorders. We have developed a more specific program expressly for people with osteoarthritis of the knee (OAKP). It includes information designed to be delivered by health professionals and results in improvements in pain, function and quality of life. Aim: To determine whether, for people with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, the OAKP implemented in a primary health care setting can achieve and maintain clinically meaningful improvements in more participants than ASMP delivered in the same environment. Methods/Design The effectiveness of the programs will be compared in a single-blind randomized study. Participants: 146 participants with established OA knee will be recruited. Volunteers with coexistent inflammatory joint disease or serious co-morbidities will be excluded. Interventions: Participants will be randomised into either OAKP or ASMP groups and followed for 6 months. Measurements: Assessments will be immediately before and after the intervention and at 6 months. Primary outcome measures will be WOMAC and SF-36 questionnaires and a VAS for pain. Secondary outcomes will include balance, tested using a timed single leg balance test and a timed step test and self-efficacy. Data will be analysed using repeated measures ANOVA. Discussion With an aging population the health care costs for people with arthritis are ever increasing. Although cost analysis is beyond the scope of this study, it is reasonable to expect that costs will be greater when health professionals deliver self-management programs as opposed to lay leaders. Consequently it is critical to examine the relative effectiveness of the primary care management strategies available for OA