A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence

RBC-transfusion dependence is common in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-associated myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of RBC-transfusion independence after therapy with pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Two hundred and fifty-two subjects (intent-to-treat (ITT) population) including 229 subjects confirmed by central review (modified ITT population) were randomly assigned (2:1) to pomalidomide or placebo. Trialists and subjects were blinded to treatment allocation. Primary end point was proportion of subjects achieving RBC-transfusion independence within 6 months. One hundred and fifty-two subjects received pomalidomide and 77 placebo. Response rates were 16% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11, 23%) vs 16% (8, 26% P=0.87). Response in the pomalidomide cohort was associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (odds ratio (OR)=3.1; 0.9, 11.1), age ⩽65 (OR=2.3; 0.9, 5.5) and type of MPN-associated myelofibrosis (OR=2.6; 0.7, 9.5). Responses in the placebo cohort were associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (OR=8.6; 0.9, 82.3), white blood cell at randomization >25 × 10(9)/l (OR=4.9; 0.8, 28.9) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 years (OR=4.9; 1.1, 21.9). Pomalidomide was associated with increased rates of oedema and neutropenia but these adverse effects were manageable. Pomalidomide and placebo had similar RBC-transfusion-independence response rates in persons with MPN-associated RBC-transfusion dependence

Use of the WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve classification to define patterns of hospital antibiotic use (AWaRe): an analysis of paediatric survey data from 56 countries

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of hospital antibiotic use is a major goal of WHO's global action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The WHO Essential Medicines List Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) classification could facilitate simple stewardship interventions that are widely applicable globally. We aimed to present data on patterns of paediatric AWaRe antibiotic use that could be used for local and national stewardship interventions. METHODS: 1-day point prevalence survey antibiotic prescription data were combined from two independent global networks: the Global Antimicrobial Resistance, Prescribing, and Efficacy in Neonates and Children and the Global Point Prevalence Survey on Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance networks. We included hospital inpatients aged younger than 19 years receiving at least one antibiotic on the day of the survey. The WHO AWaRe classification was used to describe overall antibiotic use as assessed by the variation between use of Access, Watch, and Reserve antibiotics, for neonates and children and for the commonest clinical indications. FINDINGS: Of the 23 572 patients included from 56 countries, 18 305 were children (77·7%) and 5267 were neonates (22·3%). Access antibiotic use in children ranged from 7·8% (China) to 61·2% (Slovenia) of all antibiotic prescriptions. The use of Watch antibiotics in children was highest in Iran (77·3%) and lowest in Finland (23·0%). In neonates, Access antibiotic use was highest in Singapore (100·0%) and lowest in China (24·2%). Reserve antibiotic use was low in all countries. Major differences in clinical syndrome-specific patterns of AWaRe antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infection and neonatal sepsis were observed between WHO regions and countries. INTERPRETATION: There is substantial global variation in the proportion of AWaRe antibiotics used in hospitalised neonates and children. The AWaRe classification could potentially be used as a simple traffic light metric of appropriate antibiotic use. Future efforts should focus on developing and evaluating paediatric antibiotic stewardship programmes on the basis of the AWaRe index. FUNDING: GARPEC was funded by the PENTA Foundation. GARPEC-China data collection was funded by the Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (SZSM2015120330). bioMérieux provided unrestricted funding support for the Global-PPS

Profile of pomalidomide and its potential in the treatment of myelofibrosis

Krisstina L Gowin, Ruben A Mesa Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Abstract: Myelofibrosis, a Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm, is in a new treatment era after the discovery of the JAK2V617F mutation in 2005. JAK inhibitors boast improvements in disease-related symptoms, splenomegaly, and overall survival; however, treatment of myelofibrosis remains a challenge, given the lack of improvement in cytopenias with these agents. Second-generation immunomodulatory agents, such as pomalidomide, have shown efficacy in myelofibrosis-associated anemia within multiple clinical trials. Five major pomalidomide clinical trials have been completed to date, and demonstrate tolerability and efficacy with low-dose pomalidomide (0.5 mg/day) in the treatment of myelofibrosis, and no clinical benefit of elevated dosing regimens (≥2.5 mg/day). Anemia responses ranged from 17% to 36% as per the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment consensus guidelines, while improvements in splenomegaly were rare, and observed in <1% of most clinical trials. In comparison with earlier immunomodulatory agents, pomalidomide was associated with an improved toxicity profile, with substantially lower rates of myelosuppression and neuropathy. Given the low overall response rate to pomalidomide as a single agent, combination strategies are of particular interest for future studies. Pomalidomide is currently being tested in combination with ruxolitinib, and other novel combinations are likely on the horizon. Keywords: myelofibrosis, pomalidomide, immunomodulatory, myeloproliferative neoplas