Browsing by Subject "Therapies"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody ® PD-L1 inhibitor, in advanced or recurrent solid tumors (PROCLAIM-CX-072): an open-label dose-finding and first-in-human study
    (BMJ, 2021) Naing, Aung; Thistlethwaite, Fiona; De Vries, Elisabeth G. E.; Eskens, Ferry A. L. M.; Uboha, Nataliya; Ott, Patrick A.; LoRusso, Patricia; Garcia-Corbacho, Javier; Boni, Valentina; Bendell, Johanna; Autio, Karen A.; Randhawa, Manreet; Durm, Greg; Gil-Martin, Marta; Stroh, Mark; Hannah, Alison L.; Arkenau, Hendrik-Tobias; Spira, Alexander; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs that are activated in the tumor microenvironment by tumor-associated proteases, thereby restricting the activity to the tumor microenvironment and minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. We report dose-escalation and single-agent expansion phase data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Methods: In the dose-escalation phase of this multicenter, open-label study (NCT03013491), adults with advanced solid tumors (naive to programmed-death-1/PD-L1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors) were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation cohorts, with pacmilimab administered intravenously every 14 days. The primary endpoints were safety and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In the expansion phase, patients with one of six prespecified malignancies (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]; anal squamous cell carcinoma [aSCC]; cutaneous SCC [cSCC]; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [UPS]; small bowel adenocarcinoma [SBA]; and thymic epithelial tumor [TET]); or high tumor mutational burden (hTMB) tumors were enrolled. The primary endpoint was objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1). Results: An MTD was not reached with doses up to 30 mg/kg. A recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 10 mg/kg was chosen based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings in the expansion phase. Ninety-eight patients enrolled in the expansion phase: TNBC (n=14), aSCC (n=14), cSCC (n=14), UPS (n=20), SBA (n=14), TET (n=8), and hTMB tumors (n=14). Of 114 patients receiving pacmilimab at the RP2D, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 10 patients (9%), serious TRAEs in six patients (5%), and treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs in two patients (2%). Grade ≥3 immune-related AEs occurred in two patients (rash, myocarditis). High PD-L1 expression (ie, >50% Tumor Proportion Score) was observed in 22/144 (19%) patients. Confirmed objective responses were observed in patients with cSCC (n=5, including one complete response), hTMB (n=4, including one complete response), aSCC (n=2), TNBC (n=1), UPS (n=1), and anaplastic thyroid cancer (n=1). Conclusions: Pacmilimab can be administered safely at the RP2D of 10 mg/kg every 14 days. At this dose, pacmilimab had a low rate of immune-mediated toxicity and showed signs of antitumor activity in patients not selected for high PD-L1 expression.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Heterogeneity of Second-Line Treatment for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the Connect MM Registry (2010-2016)
    (Elsevier, 2018-07-01) Jagannath, Sundar; Abonour, Rafat; Durie, Brian G. M.; Gasparetto, Cristina; Hardin, James W.; Narang, Mohit; Terebelo, Howard R.; Toomey, Kathleen; Wagner, Lynne; Srinivasan, Shankar; Kitali, Amani; Yue, Lihua; Flick, E. Dawn; Agarwal, Amit; Rifkin, Robert M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) has undergone recent changes with the regulatory approval of several new therapies indicated for second- and later-line disease. Using data from Connect MM, the largest multisite, primarily community-based, prospective, observational registry of MM patients in the United States, selection of second-line treatments was evaluated during a 5-year period from 2010 to 2016. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had newly diagnosed MM ≤ 2 months before study entry, and were followed for up to 8 years. Patients who received ≥ 2 lines of therapy were analyzed. “Tepee” plots of stacked area graphs differentiated treatments by color to allow visualization of second-line treatment trends in MM patients. Results As of February 2017, 855 of 2897 treated patients had progressed to second-line treatment. Treatment selection was heterogeneous; shifting patterns of treatment choices coincided with the approval status of newer agents. The most common treatment regimens in the early part of the decade were lenalidomide and/or bortezomib, with or without dexamethasone, with increasing use of newer agents (carfilzomib, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and elotuzumab) and triplet combinations over time. The influence of the baseline patient characteristics of age, history of diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and renal function on treatment choice was also examined. Conclusion These findings indicate that community physicians are current in their MM management practices, with uptake of new drugs and acquaintance with results of randomized clinical trials using combinations almost concurrent with their regulatory approval and publication.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2019-03) Antohi, Elena-Laura; Ambrosy, Andrew P.; Collins, Sean P.; Ahmed, Ali; Iliescu, Vlad Anton; Cotter, Gad; Pang, Peter S.; Butler, Javed; Chioncel, Ovidiu; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the most common presenting phenotype of acute heart failure (AHF). The main goal of this article was to review the contemporary management strategies in these patients and to describe how future clinical trials may address unmet clinical needs. Areas of uncertainty: The current pathophysiologic understanding of AHF is incomplete. The guideline recommendations for the management of ADHF are based only on algorithms provided by expert consensus guided by blood pressure and/or clinical signs of congestion or hypoperfusion. The lack of adequately conducted trials to address the unmet need for evidence therapy in AHF has not yet been surpassed, and at this time, there is no evidence-based strategy for targeted decongestive therapy to improve outcomes. The precise time point for initiation of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs), as respect to moment of decompensation, is also unknown. Data sources: The available data informing current management of patients with ADHF are based on randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and administrative databases. Therapeutic advances: A major step-forward in the management of ADHF patients is recognizing congestion, either clinical or hemodynamic, as a major trigger for heart failure (HF) hospitalization and most important target for therapy. However, a strategy based exclusively on congestion is not sufficient, and at present, comprehensive assessment during hospitalization of cardiac and noncardiovascular substrate with identification of potential therapeutic targets represents "the corner-stone" of ADHF management. In the last years, substantial data have emerged to support the continuation of GDMTs during hospitalization for HF decompensation. Recently, several clinical trials raised hypothesis of "moving to the left" concept that argues for very early implementation of GDMTs as potential strategy to improve outcomes. Conclusions: The management of ADHF is still based on expert consensus documents. Further research is required to identify novel therapeutic targets, to establish the precise time point to initiate GDMTs, and to identify patients at risk of recurrent hospitalization.