Thalidomide interaction with inflammation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

The "Thalidomide tragedy" is a landmark in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. Despite limited clinical trials, there is a continuous effort to investigate thalidomide as a drug for cancer and inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lepromatous leprosy, and COVID-19. This review focuses on the possibilities of targeting inflammation by repurposing thalidomide for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Articles were searched from the Scopus database, sorted, and selected articles were reviewed. The content includes the proven mechanisms of action of thalidomide relevant to IPF. Inflammation, oxidative stress, and epigenetic mechanisms are major pathogenic factors in IPF. Transforming growth factor-ß (TGF-ß) is the major biomarker of IPF. Thalidomide is an effective anti-inflammatory drug in inhibiting TGF-ß, interleukins (IL-6 and IL-1ß), and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Thalidomide binds cereblon, a process that is involved in the proposed mechanism in specific cancers such as breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple myeloma, and lung cancer. Cereblon is involved in activating AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)-TGF-ß/Smad signalling, thereby attenuating fibrosis. The past few years have witnessed an improvement in the identification of biomarkers and diagnostic technologies in respiratory diseases, partly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, investment in clinical trials with a systematic plan can help repurpose thalidomide for pulmonary fibrosis.

Bendamustine in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase II trial.

Treatment of patients with resistant/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is an unmet need. In this phase II study, we evaluated the role of bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination in this setting. Between February 2020 and December 2021, 28 patients were recruited. Patients received bendamustine 120 mg/m2 day 1, pomalidomide 3 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 11, 22, regimen given for a maximum of six cycles. The median (range) age of the patients was 54 (30-76) years and 15 (53.6%) were males. Patients had received a median (range) of three (two-six) prior lines and 85.7% were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary end-point was the overall response rate (ORR) defined as ≥partial response after at least three cycles. Secondary objectives were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis was done. An ORR of 57.6% was achieved. Patients with extramedullary myeloma had a better response rate. At a median follow-up of 8.6 months, the median PFS and OS were 6.2 and 9.7 months respectively. Toxicity was manageable; mainly haematological (neutropenia, 46.4%; anaemia, 42.8%; and thrombocytopenia, 7.1%). Bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone could be a novel combination for the heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory myeloma population.

Infections in relapsed myeloma patients treated with isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial results of a UK-wide real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: There are no real-world data describing infection morbidity in relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with anti-CD38 isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex). In this UK-wide retrospective study, we set out to evaluate infections experienced by routine care patients who received this novel therapy across 24 cancer centres during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The primary endpoint was infection morbidity (incidence, grading, hospitalization) as well as infection-related deaths. Secondary outcomes were clinical predictors of increased incidence of any grade (G2-5) and high grade (≥G3) infections. RESULTS: In a total cohort of 107 patients who received a median (IQR) of 4 cycles (2-8), 23.4% of patients experienced ≥1 any grade (G2-5) infections (total of 31 episodes) and 18.7% of patients experienced ≥1 high grade (≥G3) infections (total of 22 episodes). Median time (IQR) from start of therapy to first episode was 29 days (16-75). Six patients experienced COVID-19 infection, of whom 5 were not vaccinated and 1 was fully vaccinated. The cumulative duration of infection-related hospitalizations was 159 days. The multivariate (MVA) Poisson Regression analysis demonstrated that a higher co-morbidity burden with Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) score ≥4 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3, p = 0.012) and sub-optimal myeloma response less than a partial response (

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

The influence of leprosy-related clinical and epidemiological variables in the occurrence and severity of COVID-19: A prospective real-world cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Protective effects of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination and clofazimine and dapsone treatment against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have been reported. Patients at risk for leprosy represent an interesting model for assessing the effects of these therapies on the occurrence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the influence of leprosy-related variables in the occurrence and severity of COVID-19. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a 14-month prospective real-world cohort study in which the main risk factor was 2 previous vaccinations with BCG and the main outcome was COVID-19 detection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). A Cox proportional hazards model was used. Among the 406 included patients, 113 were diagnosed with leprosy. During follow-up, 69 (16.99%) patients contracted COVID-19. Survival analysis showed that leprosy was associated with COVID-19 (p<0.001), but multivariate analysis showed that only COVID-19-positive household contacts (hazard ratio (HR) = 8.04; 95% CI = 4.93-13.11) and diabetes mellitus (HR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.04-4.06) were significant risk factors for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Leprosy patients are vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have more frequent contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, possibly due to social and economic limitations. Our model showed that the use of corticosteroids, thalidomide, pentoxifylline, clofazimine, or dapsone or BCG vaccination did not affect the occurrence or severity of COVID-19.

Repurposing of thalidomide and its derivatives for the treatment of SARS-coV-2 infections: Hints on molecular action.

AIMS: The SARS-coV-2 pandemic continues to cause an unprecedented global destabilization requiring urgent attention towards drug and vaccine development. Thalidomide, a drug with known anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects has been indicated to be effective in treating a SARS-coV-2 pneumonia patient. Here, we study the possible mechanisms through which thalidomide might affect coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). METHODS: The present study explores the possibility of repurposing thalidomide for the treatment of SARS-coV-2 pneumonia by reanalysing transcriptomes of SARS-coV-2 infected tissues with thalidomide and lenalidomide induced transcriptomic changes in transformed lung and haematopoietic models as procured from databases, and further comparing them with the transcriptome of primary endothelial cells. RESULTS: Thalidomide and lenalidomide exhibited pleiotropic effects affecting a range of biological processes including inflammation, immune response, angiogenesis, MAPK signalling, NOD-like receptor signalling, Toll-like receptor signalling, leucocyte differentiation and innate immunity, the processes that are aberrantly regulated in severe COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates thalidomide analogues as a better fit for treating severe cases of novel viral infections, healing the damaged network by compensating the impairment caused by the COVID-19.

COVID-19 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on biologic immunosuppressant therapy vs apremilast in North Spain.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments are critical for the management of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions such as psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Similar to those illnesses, the lung injury and acute respiratory distress shown in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are the result of a disruption in the balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. This hyperinflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), associated with the severity of the coronavirus disease, is called the cytokine storm. There is a growing concern regarding how patients on immunosuppressant biologic therapies might be at higher risk of being infected and whether they need to discontinue their treatment preemptively. Clinical data on COVID-19-infected patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are still scarce. Here, we presented seven cases of these type of patients. The patient infected with COVID-19 on apremilast and the one on apremilast with infected spouse showed the best safety profile and mildest symptoms. One of the secukinumab patients also presented a relatively good outcome. Infliximab patients and the one with serious comorbidities showed the worst outcome. Even though more clinical data are yet needed to draw strong conclusions, apremilast could be a safer alternative for dermatology and rheumatology patients in case of clinically important active infection.

Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak and the serum prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with biologic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving biologic therapies are at risk for viral infections. This study investigated the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the serum prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with biologic drugs. METHODS: Information on demography, co-morbidities, clinical data regarding IBD, symptoms suggestive of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, close contacts with SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, hospitalization, and therapies administered for COVID-19 was collected for all patients who were being treated with biologic drugs. All patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine patients (27 children) with a mean age of 42.2 ±â€¯16.7 years (range 9 - 88) and a mean duration of disease of 13.4 ±â€¯10 years (range 0.2 - 49) were enrolled. One hundred four patients (40.2%) had ulcerative colitis, and 155 (59.8%) had Crohn's disease. About the therapy: 62 patients were receiving infliximab, 89 adalimumab, 20 golimumab, 57 vedolizumab, 27 ustekinumab, 1 thalidomide, and 3 an experimental compound. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2. Thirty-two patients (12.3%) reported respiratory symptoms, and 2 of them were hospitalized (0.77%). Two patients resulted positive for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 (0.77%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IBD, treatment with biologic drug does not represent a risk factor for the SARS-CoV-2 infection.