MAPK inhibitors dynamically affect melanoma release of immune NKG2D-ligands, as soluble protein and extracellular vesicle-associated

Metastatic melanoma presents, in many cases, oncogenic mutations in BRAF, a MAPK involved in proliferation of tumour cells. BRAF inhibitors, used as therapy in patients with these mutations, often lead to tumour resistance and, thus, the use of MEK inhibitors was introduced in clinics. BRAFi/MEKi, a combination that has modestly increased overall survival in patients, has been proven to differentially affect immune ligands, such as NKG2D-ligands, in drug-sensitive vs. drug-resistant cells. However, the fact that NKG2D-ligands can be released as soluble molecules or in extracellular vesicles represents an additional level of complexity that has not been explored. Here we demonstrate that inhibition of MAPK using MEKi, and the combination of BRAFi with MEKi in vitro, modulates NKG2D-ligands in BRAF-mutant and WT melanoma cells, together with other NK activating ligands. These observations reinforce a role of the immune system in the generation of resistance to directed therapies and support the potential benefit of MAPK inhibition in combination with immunotherapies. Both soluble and EV-associated NKG2D-ligands, generally decreased in BRAF-mutant melanoma cell supernatants after MAPKi in vitro, replicating cell surface expression. Because potential NKG2D-ligand fluctuation during MAPKi treatment could have different consequences for the immune response, a pilot study to measure NKG2D-ligand variation in plasma or serum from metastatic melanoma patients, at different time points during MAPKi treatment, was performed. Not all NKG2D-ligands were equally detected. Further, EV detection did not parallel soluble protein. Altogether, our data confirm the heterogeneity between melanoma lesions, and suggest testing several NKG2D-ligands and other melanoma antigens in serum, both as soluble or vesicle-released proteins, to help classifying immune competence of patients

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

Appropriateness of antiplatelet therapy for primary and secondary cardio- and cerebrovascular prevention in acutely hospitalized older people

Aims: Antiplatelet therapy is recommended for the secondary prevention of cardio- and cerebrovascular disease, but for primary prevention it is advised only in patients at very high risk. With this background, this study aims to assess the appropriateness of antiplatelet therapy in acutely hospitalized older people according to their risk profile. Methods: Data were obtained from the REPOSI register held in Italian and Spanish internal medicine and geriatric wards in 2012 and 2014. Hospitalized patients aged 6565 assessable at discharge were selected. Appropriateness of the antiplatelet therapy was evaluated according to their primary or secondary cardiovascular prevention profiles. Results: Of 2535 enrolled patients, 2199 were assessable at discharge. Overall 959 (43.6%, 95% CI 41.5\u201345.7) were prescribed an antiplatelet drug, aspirin being the most frequently chosen. Among patients prescribed for primary prevention, just over half were inappropriately prescribed (52.1%), being mainly overprescribed (155/209 patients, 74.2%). On the other hand, there was also a high rate of inappropriate underprescription in the context of secondary prevention (222/726 patients, 30.6%, 95% CI 27.3\u201334.0%). Conclusions: This study carried out in acutely hospitalized older people shows a high degree of inappropriate prescription among patients prescribed with antiplatelets for primary prevention, mainly due to overprescription. Further, a large proportion of patients who had had overt cardio- or cerebrovascular disease were underprescribed, in spite of the established benefits of antiplatelet drugs in the context of secondary prevention