Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to report clinical observations suggesting the efficacy of topical 1% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in treating Demodex -associated blepharitis., Methods: An observational retrospective review of 13 eyes from 13 individuals with conjunctival neoplastic lesions and concomitant Demodex lash infestation that received topical 1% 5-FU eye drops. Patients underwent slit-lamp examination at each follow-up visit. Clinical photographs of the lash line were obtained after treatment initiation. In a subset of patients, lashes were epilated bilaterally and microscopically analyzed for presence of Demodex mites before and after treatment initiation., Results: The mean age of the population was 68 ± 14 years (range: 30-84 years) and 92% were male. In all 13 patients, a marked reduction in cylindrical dandruff was noted in the treated eye by slit-lamp examination after 2 cycles of 5-FU. There was complete resolution of cylindrical dandruff in 10 of 13 treated eyes compared with 0 resolution of cylindrical dandruff in untreated eyes ( P = 0.0001). In the 6 patients who received epilation, the lashes from the treated eye showed no Demodex , whereas lashes from the fellow untreated eye revealed persistent Demodex ., Conclusions: Topical 1% 5-FU shows efficacy in treating Demodex -associated blepharitis. Further studies are indicated to reproduce our findings and evaluate the potential use of 5-FU as a treatment ingredient., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate VEGF-C-induced lymphoproliferation in conjunction with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) antimetabolite treatment in a rabbit glaucoma filtration surgery (GFS) model., Methods: Thirty-two rabbits underwent GFS and were assigned to four groups (n = 8 each) defined by subconjunctival drug treatment: (a) VEGF-C combined with 5-FU, (b) 5-FU, (c) VEGF-C, (d) and control. Bleb survival, bleb measurements, and IOP were evaluated over 30 days. At the end, histology and anterior segment OCT were performed on some eyes. mRNA was isolated from the remaining eyes for RT-PCR evaluation of vessel-specific markers (lymphatics, podoplanin and LYVE-1; and blood vessels, CD31)., Results: Qualitatively and quantitatively, VEGF-C combined with 5-FU resulted in blebs which were posteriorly longer and wider than the other conditions: vs. 5-FU (P = 0.043 for longer, P = 0.046 for wider), vs. VEGF-C (P < 0.001, P < 0.001) and vs. control (P < 0.001, P < 0.001). After 30 days, the VEGF-C combined with 5-FU condition resulted in longer bleb survival compared with 5-FU (P = 0.025), VEGF-C (P < 0.001), and control (P < 0.001). Only the VEGF-C combined with 5-FU condition showed a negative correlation between IOP and time that was statistically significant (r = -0.533; P = 0.034). Anterior segment OCT and histology demonstrated larger blebs for the VEGF-C combined with 5-FU condition. Only conditions including VEGF-C led to increased expression of lymphatic markers (LYVE-1, P < 0.001-0.008 and podoplanin, P = 0.002-0.011). Expression of CD31 was not different between the groups (P = 0.978)., Conclusions: Adding VEGF-C lymphoproliferation to standard antimetabolite treatment improved rabbit GFS success and may suggest a future strategy to improve human GFSs.

First-line purine nucleoside analogues (PNAs) in hairy cell leukaemia (HCL) allow deep and long-lasting responses. We retrospectively analysed 53 HCL patients treated frontline with cladribine and assessed for response at 2 and 6 months after treatment to evaluate the kinetics of response. The estimated median progression-free survival was significantly different according to the degree of residual HCL infiltrate detected by immunohistochemistry at the bone marrow biopsy at 2 months (≤5% vs. >5%, 247 vs. 132 months, respectively, p = 0.033), but not at 6 months (p = 0.79). Our data suggest a favourable prognostic impact of early marrow HCL clearance in patients treated with cladribine., (© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the phase 3 QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535) of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in remission following intensive chemotherapy (IC) and ineligible for haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo. The impact of subsequent treatment following maintenance has not been evaluated. In this post hoc analysis, OS was estimated for patients who received subsequent AML therapy, and by regimen received (IC or lower-intensity therapy). First subsequent therapy (FST) was administered after treatment discontinuation in 134/238 Oral-AZA and 173/234 placebo patients. OS from randomization in patients who received FST after Oral-AZA versus placebo was 17.8 versus 12.9 months (HR: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.64-1.04], median follow-up: 56.7 months); OS from FST was similar between arms. Among patients who received injectable hypomethylating agents as FST, median OS was 8.2 versus 4.9 months in the Oral-AZA versus placebo groups (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.41-1.06]). Forty-eight patients (16/238 Oral-AZA, 32/234 placebo) received HSCT following treatment discontinuation, including six Oral-AZA patients still in first remission; Oral-AZA OS benefit persisted when censoring these patients. Oral-AZA maintenance can prolong AML remission duration without negatively impacting survival outcomes after salvage therapies., (© 2023 Bristol Myers Squibb and The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease., Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease., Search Methods: On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events., Main Results: Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse., Authors' Conclusions: Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown., Methods: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received., Results: 78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease)., Conclusions: IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMQ – Advisory board for BMS, Roche, Merck. AA – Reported honoraria, advisory/consultancy, speaker bureau/expert testimony, travel/accommodation/expenses from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Amgen, Merck, Sanofi and Eisai Ltd. CB – Reports grants from Advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures. Research funding: BMS, Novartis, NanoString. Stockownership: Uniti Cars, co-founder Immagene BV, all outside the submitted work. MSC - Advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen, Ideaya, Merck Serono and Sanofi. DBJ – Advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and Oncosec; Receives research grants from BMS and Incyte. GVL - consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. AMM – Advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. BS – Honoraria from MSD, BMS, SUN Pharma, Allmiral, Novartis; Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Sanofi; travel support from BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharma; Research Funding from Novartis; all outside the submitted work. LZ - served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. KY- support from NIHR RM/ICR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer, Institutional research support: AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Ultimovacs,Teaching/promotional meetings: BMS, Eisai, Ipsen. CH, JL, AM-E, JMK, SNL, LT, KJN, NY, AT, YW and RMH report no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Suboptimal treatment outcomes with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folate, the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), have generated interest in optimizing the folate. Arfolitixorin ([6R]-5,10-methylene-tetrahydrofolate) is an immediately active folate and may improve outcomes over the existing standard of care (leucovorin)., Experimental Design: AGENT was a randomized, phase III study (NCT03750786). Patients with mCRC were randomized to arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2 given as two intravenous bolus doses of 60 mg/m2) or leucovorin (400 mg/m2 given as a single intravenous infusion) plus 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab. Assessments were performed every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the superiority of arfolitixorin for overall response rate (ORR)., Results: Between February 2019 and April 2021, 490 patients were randomized (245 to each arm). After a median follow-up of 266 days, the primary endpoint of superiority for ORR was not achieved (48.2% for arfolitixorin vs. 49.4% for leucovorin, Psuperiority = 0.57). Outcomes were not achieved for median progression-free survival (PFS; 12.8 and 11.6 months, P = 0.38), median duration of response (12.2 and 12.9 months, P = 0.40), and median overall survival (23.8 and 28.0 months, P = 0.78). The proportion of patients with an adverse event of grade ≥3 severity was similar between arms (68.7% and 67.2%, respectively), as was quality of life. BRAF mutations and MTHFD2 expression were both associated with a lower PFS with arfolitixorin., Conclusions: The study failed to demonstrate clinical benefit of arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2) over leucovorin. However, it provides some useful insights from the first-line treatment setting, including the effect of gene expression on outcomes., Significance: This phase III study compared arfolitixorin, a direct-acting folate, with leucovorin in FOLFOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC. Arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2) did not improve the ORR, potentially indicating a suboptimal dose., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: The data on post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in pediatric acute leukemia after matched allo-HSCT are limited to case series. The present study aimed to assess the results of PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis in a large cohort of children with acute leukemia after matched allo-HSCT., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 190 pediatric patients with acute leukemia who had a first allograft between 2008 and 2020 from a matched sibling donor (MSD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) was carried out. In the MSD setting, GVHD prophylaxis consisted of PTCy alone (n = 28) for the study group, and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) ± antimetabolite (n = 30) for the control group. In MUD setting, most patients in the study group received GVHD prophylaxis with PTCy+CNI+mycophenolate mofetil (n = 42, 66.7%) or PTCy+CNI+sirolimus (n = 12, 19%). All patients (n = 69) in the control group received ATG+CNI+antimetabolite., Results: After MUD allo-HSCT, the incidences of acute GVHD grade III-IV and moderate/severe chronic GVHD were significantly lower in the PTCy group compared to control (6.6% vs. 35.0% and 12.7% vs. 47.1%, respectively, p < .0001). Five-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) after MUD allo-HSCT was higher in the PTCy group compared to control (35.1% vs. 7.3%, p < .0001). At the same time, there was no significant difference between both groups after MSD allo-HSCT., Conclusions: In pediatric acute leukemia, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis for MUD allo-HSCT is a feasible and effective option that results in a low incidence of GVHD. Compared to the ATG-based approach, PTCy provides better control of GVHD in children. In pediatric allo-HSCT from MSD, PTCy demonstrates comparable effectiveness to conventional GVHD prophylaxis., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)