Search

Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in 5% to 10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib is an IDH1 inhibitor, approved for use in patients with IDH1-mutated AML. Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, phase I trial of maintenance ivosidenib following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with IDH1-mutated AML. Ivosidenib was initiated between days 30 and 90 following HCT and continued for up to 12 28-day cycles. The first dose level was 500 mg daily, with level reduction to 250 mg daily, if needed, in a 3 × 3 de-escalation design. Ten additional patients would then receive the MTD or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was establishing the MTD or RP2D of ivosidenib. Results: Eighteen patients were enrolled, of whom 16 initiated post-HCT ivosidenib. One dose-limiting toxicity, grade(g) 3 QTc prolongation, was observed. The RP2D was established at 500 mg daily. Attributable g≥3 adverse events were uncommon, with the most common being QTc prolongation in 2 patients. Eight patients discontinued maintenance, with only one due to adverse event. Six-month cumulative incidence (CI) of gII-IV aGVHD was 6.3%, and 2-year CI of all cGVHD was 63%. Two-year CI of relapse and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) were 19% and 0%, respectively. Two-year progression-free (PFS) was 81%, and 2-year overall survival (OS) was 88%. Conclusions: Ivosidenib is safe and well-tolerated as maintenance therapy following HCT. Cumulative incidence of relapse and NRM, as well as estimations of PFS and OS, were promising in this phase I study.

Representativeness of Study Participants

Supplemental Figure 2: Overall and progression-free survival for patients according to NPM1 mutational status

Purpose:Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in 5% to 10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib is an IDH1 inhibitor, approved for use in patients with IDH1-mutated AML.Methods:We conducted a multicenter, phase I trial of maintenance ivosidenib following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with IDH1-mutated AML. Ivosidenib was initiated between days 30 and 90 following HCT and continued for up to 12 28-day cycles. The first dose level was 500 mg daily, with level reduction to 250 mg daily, if needed, in a 3 × 3 de-escalation design. Ten additional patients would then receive the MTD or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was establishing the MTD or RP2D of ivosidenib.Results:Eighteen patients were enrolled, of whom 16 initiated post-HCT ivosidenib. One dose-limiting toxicity, grade(g) 3 QTc prolongation, was observed. The RP2D was established at 500 mg daily. Attributable g≥3 adverse events were uncommon, with the most common being QTc prolongation in 2 patients. Eight patients discontinued maintenance, with only one due to adverse event. Six-month cumulative incidence (CI) of gII-IV aGVHD was 6.3%, and 2-year CI of all cGVHD was 63%. Two-year CI of relapse and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) were 19% and 0%, respectively. Two-year progression-free (PFS) was 81%, and 2-year overall survival (OS) was 88%.Conclusions:Ivosidenib is safe and well-tolerated as maintenance therapy following HCT. Cumulative incidence of relapse and NRM, as well as estimations of PFS and OS, were promising in this phase I study.

Supplemental Figure 1: Overall and progression-free survival for patients, according to whether the transplant followed first line or second line treatment.

IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) mutations occur in approximately 15% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib was recently approved for IDH2-mutated relapsed or refractory AML. We conducted a multi-center, phase I trial of maintenance enasidenib following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with IDH2-mutated myeloid malignancies. Two dose levels, 50mg and 100mg daily were studied in a 3 × 3 dose-escalation design, with 10 additional patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Enasidenib was initiated between days 30 and 90 following HCT and continued for twelve 28-day cycles. Twenty-three patients were enrolled, of whom 19 initiated post-HCT maintenance. Two had myelodysplastic syndrome, and 17 had AML. All but 3 were in first complete remission. No dose limiting toxicities were observed, and the RP2D was established at 100mg daily. Attributable grade ≥3 toxicities were rare, with the most common being cytopenias. Eight patients stopped maintenance before completing 12 cycles, due to adverse events (n=3), pursuing treatment for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) (n=2), clinician choice (n=1), relapse (n=1), and COVID infection (n=1). No cases of grade ≥3 acute GVHD were seen, and 12-month cumulative incidence of moderate/severe chronic GVHD was 42% (20-63%). Cumulative incidence of relapse was 16% (95% CI: 3.7-36%); 1 subject relapsed while receiving maintenance. Two-year progression-free and overall survival were 69% (95% CI: 39-86%) and 74% (95% CI, 44-90%), respectively. Enasidenib is safe, well-tolerated, with preliminary activity as maintenance therapy following HCT, and merits additional study. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT03515512).

Background Prior studies suggest similar efficacy between large-bore chest tube (CT) placement and small-bore pigtail catheter (PC) placement for the treatment of pleural space processes. This study examined reintervention rates of CT and PC in patients with pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pleural effusion. Methods This retrospective study examined patients from September 2015 through December 2020. Patients were identified using ICD codes for pneumothorax, hemothorax, or pleural effusion. Use of a pigtail catheter (≤14Fr) or surgical chest tube (≥20Fr) was noted. The primary outcome was overall reintervention rate within 30 days of tube insertion. Patients who died with a pleural drainage catheter in place, unrelated to complications from chest tube placement, were excluded. Results There were 1032 total patients in the study: 706 CT patients and 326 PC patients. The PC group was older with more comorbidities and more likely to have effusion as the indication for pleural drainage. Patients with PC were 2.35 times more likely to have the tube replaced or repositioned ( P < .0001), 1.77 times more likely to require any reintervention ( P = .001) and 2.09 times more likely to remain in the hospital >14 days ( P < .0001) compared to patients with CT. Conclusion PCs have a significantly higher reintervention rate compared to CT for the treatment of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pleural effusion. Although PC are believed to cause less pain and tissue trauma, they do not necessarily drain the pleural space as well as CT. Decisions on which method of draining the chest should be made on a case-by-case basis.