Atraumatic Restorative Treatment: Review and a Case Report

Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), which was introduced as field trials, have gained popularity among clinicians for their ease, minimal use of instrumentation and hence can be done in remote areas with little or no resources and can be used in patients with special needs, anxious and apprehensive patients in the dental setting. The present paper presents a case of modified ART (ARTm) with full patient satisfaction after a 3 month follow up, with a review of the same and the differences between ART and ARTm

A phase Ib study to assess the efficacy and safety of vismodegib in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis

Background: The JAK inhibitor (JAKi) ruxolitinib is standard treatment for myelofibrosis (MF), but some patients are unresponsive. Pre-clinical and clinical data suggest that addition of a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI) to ruxolitinib might improve response. Vismodegib is an HPI approved for treatment of locally advanced and metastatic basal cell carcinoma. The MYLIE study assessed the safety and efficacy of combining ruxolitinib with vismodegib in ruxolitinib-naive patients with MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vismodegib in this setting.Methods: In this phase Ib study, ten patients with intermediate-or high-risk primary or secondary MF received open-label vismodegib (150 mg/day orally) and ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg orally twice daily, depending on baseline platelet count) for up to 48 weeks, or until withdrawal or discontinuation. PK samples were collected throughout the study for comparison with other patient populations. Efficacy outcomes at week 24 included spleen response (>= 35% reduction in volume by imaging) and improvement in bone marrow fibrosis by central and investigator assessment, symptom response (>= 50% reduction in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom score), and anemia response (per International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment revised response criteria).Results: As of November 17, 2017, eight patients had completed 48 weeks of treatment with vismodegib and ruxolitinib; two discontinued treatment early. At week 24 (+/- 1 week), three patients experienced a spleen response by central review and no patients showed a 1-grade improvement in bone marrow fibrosis by central review. Five patients experienced symptom response at week 24, and no patients experienced an anemia response. The most common adverse events were muscle spasm (100% of patients), alopecia (70%), dysgeusia (50%), thrombocytopenia (50%), and nausea (40%); these events were predominantly grade 1/2. Three patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events.Conclusions: The combination of vismodegib and ruxolitinib was tolerable and no new safety signals were seen, but there was no evidence that the addition of vismodegib to ruxolitinib improved any of the efficacy outcome measures assessed. Further evaluation of this combination will not be pursued

Cobimetinib alone and plus venetoclax with/without atezolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

This phase IB/II trial evaluated safety and efficacy of cobimetinib alone and in novel combinations with veneto-clax with/without atezolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Cobimetinib alone and in combination with venetoclax with/without atezolizumab was determined to be safe and tolerable; anti-tumor activity was moderate overall but higher in patients with translocation t(11;14). Introduction: Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway mutations are present in > 50% of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). MEK inhibitors show limited single-agent activity in R/R MM; combi-nation with B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition may improve efficacy. This phase Ib/II trial (NCT03312530) evaluated safety and efficacy of cobimetinib (cobi) alone and in combination with veneto-clax (ven) with/without atezolizumab (atezo) in patients with R/R MM. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine patients were randomized 1:2:2 to cobi 60 mg/day on days 1-21 (n = 6), cobi 40 mg/day on days 1-21 + ven 800 mg/day on days 1-28 with/without atezo 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycles (cobi-ven, n = 22; cobi-ven-atezo, n = 21). Safety run-in cohorts evaluated cobi-ven and cobi-ven-atezo dose levels. Results: Any-grade common adverse events (AEs) with cobi, cobi-ven, and cobi-ven-atezo, respectively, included diarrhea (33.3%, 81.8%, 90.5%) and nausea (16.7%, 50.0%, 66.7%); common grade >= 3 AEs included anemia (0%, 22.7%, 23.8%), neutropenia (0%, 13.6%, 38.1%), and thrombocytopenia (0%, 18.2%, 23.8%). The overall response rate for all-comers was 0% (cobi), 27.3% (cobi-ven), and 28.6% (cobi-ven-atezo), and 0%, 50.0%, and 100%, respectively, in patients with t(11;14) + . Biomarker analysis demon-strated non-t(11;14) patient selection with NRAS /KRAS /BRAF mutation or high BCL-2/BCL-2-L1 ratio ( > 52% of the study population) could enrich for responders to the cobi-ven combination. Conclusions: Cobi-ven and cobi-ven-atezo demonstrated manageable safety with moderate activity in all-comers, and higher activity in patients with t(11;14) + MM, supporting a biomar ker-dr iven approach for ven in MM