Search

Author(s): Shaun Cordoba [sup.1] , Shimobi Onuoha [sup.1] , Simon Thomas [sup.1] , Daniela Soriano Pignataro [sup.1] , Rachael Hough [sup.2] , Sara Ghorashian [sup.3] , Ajay Vora [sup.3] , [...], Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting CD19 or CD22 have shown remarkable activity in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). The major cause of treatment failure is antigen downregulation or loss. Dual antigen targeting could potentially prevent this, but the clinical safety and efficacy of CAR T cells targeting both CD19 and CD22 remain unclear. We conducted a phase 1 trial in pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-ALL (n = 15) to test AUTO3, autologous transduced T cells expressing both anti-CD19 and anti-CD22 CARs (AMELIA trial, EUDRA CT 2016-004680-39). The primary endpoints were the incidence of grade 3-5 toxicity in the dose-limiting toxicity period and the frequency of dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary endpoints included the rate of morphological remission (complete response or complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery) with minimal residual disease-negative response, as well as the frequency and severity of adverse events, expansion and persistence of AUTO3, duration of B cell aplasia, and overall and event-free survival. The study endpoints were met. AUTO3 showed a favorable safety profile, with no dose-limiting toxicities or cases of AUTO3-related severe cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity reported. At 1 month after treatment the remission rate (that is, complete response or complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery) was 86% (13 of 15 patients). The 1 year overall and event-free survival rates were 60% and 32%, respectively. Relapses were probably due to limited long-term AUTO3 persistence. Strategies to improve CAR T cell persistence are needed to fully realize the potential of dual targeting CAR T cell therapy in B-ALL. Bicistronic CAR T cells targeting CD19 and CD22 exhibit clinical activity and low toxicity in pediatric and young adult patients with B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with relapses associated with limited CAR T cell persistence.

Abstract: This study evaluated the absolute bioavailability of bosutinib and assessed its safety and tolerability after single‐dose oral and intravenous administration. In this phase 1 open‐label, 2‐sequence, 2‐period crossover study, healthy, fed subjects aged 18−55 years were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences (n = 7/sequence): oral bosutinib (100 mg × 5) followed by intravenous bosutinib (120 mg in approximately 240 mL over 1 hour), with a ≥14‐day washout, or intravenous bosutinib and then oral bosutinib. Results of plasma pharmacokinetics analyses demonstrated that exposure to intravenous bosutinib was 3‐fold higher than for oral bosutinib (16.2 and 5.5 ng·h/mL/mg, respectively), and mean terminal half‐life was similar (35.5 and 31.7 hours). The ratio of adjusted geometric means (90%CI) for the dose‐normalized area under the plasma concentration–time profile (AUC0−∞/D) was 33.85% (30.65%‒37.38%). Most treatment‐emergent adverse events (AEs) were mild in severity. Gastrointestinal (GI) AEs occurred in 9 of 13 subjects given oral bosutinib, whereas no subjects given intravenous bosutinib experienced GI AEs, suggesting bosutinib present in the GI tract had an effect. Bosutinib exhibited an absolute bioavailability of 33.85% based on the ratio of AUC0−∞/D. Both oral and intravenous bosutinib were safe and well tolerated in healthy, fed adult subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venetoclax (Ven), an orally administered, potent BCL-2 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in combination with rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G). Our aim was to investigate the addition of bendamustine (B) to these Ven-containing regimens in relapsed/refractory (R/R) or first-line (1L) CLL. This multi-arm, non-randomized, open-label, phase 1b study was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety/tolerability of Ven with BR/BG, with 3+3 dose-escalation followed by safety expansion. Patients received Ven (schedule A) or BR/BG first (schedule B) to compare safety and determine dose/schedule for expansion. Six Ven-BR/-BG cycles were to be administered, then Ven monotherapy until disease progression (R/R) or fixed-duration 1-year treatment (1L). Overall, 33 R/R and 50 1L patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed (doses 100-400-mg), and the MTD was not reached. Safety was similar between schedules; no tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred during dose-finding. Schedule B and Ven 400-mg were chosen for expansion. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicity was neutropenia: R/R 64%, 1L Ven-BR 85%, 1L Ven-BG 55%. Grade 3-4 infection rate was: R/R 27%, 1L Ven-BR 0%, 1L Ven-BG 27%. During expansion, one clinical and two laboratory TLS cases occurred. Fewer than half the patients completed six combination therapy cycles with all study drugs; rates of bendamustine discontinuation were high. Overall response rate was 91% in R/R and 100% in 1L patients (16/49 1L patients received Ven for >1 year). In conclusion, addition of bendamustine to Ven-R/-G increased toxicity without apparent efficacy benefit.

Unlabelled: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurologic disorder that mostly affects young adults and can usually evolute to physical disability. Thus, caring patients with MS brings many ethic questions for the physician., Objective: To identify physicians and patients' perceptions about the illness and so improve doctor-patient relationship., Method: It was made two different questionnaires, one for patients and another for physicians, 103 patients and 44 physicians answered them., Results: 96.1% of patients knew their diagnosis, all others would like to know it. From those, 74.7% thought that that way it was disclosured was correct and 90.9% said that the doctor should tell us it. The worst symptoms described were fatigue (29.1%) and motor deficits (28.1%). By other side, 68% of patients told they suffered because of the illness. The most important reason for doctors to tell the diagnosis to the patients was to improve adherence to treatment (56.8%). A familiar present at this moment was demanded for 54.6% of doctors. When asked about orientations in a pregnancy, 50% of physicians did not answer correctly. Finally, 50% of physicians were against complementary and alternative therapies., Conclusion: Patients want to know their diagnosis and doctors should tell them in the most adequate moment and give more information. A debate about palliative care is also necessary.