Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients treated with rituximab: a 20-year review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a serious and usually fatal CNS infection caused by the John Cunningham virus. CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell lymphopenia, resulting from HIV infection, chemotherapy, or immunosuppressive therapy, are primary risk factors for PML. Following its introduction in 1997, the immunomodulatory anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, has received regulatory approval worldwide for treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis, and pemphigus vulagris. Rituximab leads to prolonged B-lymphocyte depletion, potentially allowing John Cunningham viral infection to occur. Six unexpected cases of PML infection developing in rituximab-treated patients were first reported in 2002. We review 20 years of information on clinical findings, pathology, epidemiology, proposed pathogenesis, and risk-management issues associated with PML infection developing after rituximab treatment. Since the first case series report of 52 cases of rituximab-associated PML among patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in 2009, updated and diligent pharmacovigilance efforts have provided reassurance that this fatal toxicity is a rare clinical event with concurring causal factors. International harmonisation of safety warnings around rituximab-associated PML should be considered, with these notifications listing rituximab-associated PML under a section titled warnings and precautions as is the case in most countries, rather than a boxed warning as is the case in the USA.

Consequences to patients, clinicians, and manufacturers when very serious adverse drug reactions are identified (1997-2019): A qualitative analysis from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug/device reactions (ADRs) can result in severe patient harm. We define very serious ADRs as being associated with severe toxicity, as measured on the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE)) scale, following use of drugs or devices with large sales, large financial settlements, and large numbers of injured persons. We report on impacts on patients, clinicians, and manufacturers following very serious ADR reporting. METHODS: We reviewed clinician identified very serious ADRs published between 1997 and 2019. Drugs and devices associated with reports of very serious ADRs were identified. Included drugs or devices had market removal discussed at Food and Drug Advisory (FDA) Advisory Committee meetings, were published by clinicians, had sales > $1 billion, were associated with CTCAE Grade 4 or 5 toxicity effects, and had either >$1 billion in settlements or >1,000 injured patients. Data sources included journals, Congressional transcripts, and news reports. We reviewed data on: 1) timing of ADR reports, Boxed warnings, and product withdrawals, and 2) patient, clinician, and manufacturer impacts. Binomial analysis was used to compare sales pre- and post-FDA Advisory Committee meetings. FINDINGS: Twenty very serious ADRs involved fifteen drugs and one device. Legal settlements totaled $38.4 billion for 753,900 injured persons. Eleven of 18 clinicians (61%) reported harms, including verbal threats from manufacturer (five) and loss of a faculty position (one). Annual sales decreased 94% from $29.1 billion pre-FDA meeting to $4.9 billion afterwards (p<0.0018). Manufacturers of four drugs paid $1.7 billion total in criminal fines for failing to inform the FDA and physicians about very serious ADRs. Following FDA approval, the median time to ADR reporting was 7.5 years (Interquartile range 3,13 years). Twelve drugs received Box warnings and one drug received a warning (median, 7.5 years following ADR reporting (IQR 5,11 years). Six drugs and 1 device were withdrawn from marketing (median, 5 years after ADR reporting (IQR 4,6 years)). INTERPRETATION: Because very serious ADRs impacts are so large, policy makers should consider developing independently funded pharmacovigilance centers of excellence to assist with clinician investigations. FUNDING: This work received support from the National Cancer Institute (1R01 CA102713 (CLB), https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-cancer-institute-nci; and two Pilot Project grants from the American Cancer Society's Institutional Grant Award to the University of South Carolina (IRG-13-043-01) https://www.cancer.org/ (SH; BS).

The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

Response to: letter to the editor: consideration on 'an evaluation of reports of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin association neuropsychiatric toxicities, long-term disability, and aortic aneurysms/dissections disseminated by the food and drug administration and the European medicines agency' by bennett et al.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary fibrosis includes several lung disorders characterized by progressive fibrosis, of which idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a particularly severe form with a median survival time of 3-5 years after diagnosis. Although numerous compounds have shown efficacy in attenuating pulmonary fibrosis using animal models, only a few compounds have shown their beneficial effects for IPF in clinical trials. Thus, there is an ongoing need to improve the preclinical development process to better identify, characterize and select clinically useful targets. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we extensively describe current models of pulmonary fibrosis, focusing on rodent models, ex vivo models, and in vitro models. EXPERT OPINION: Based upon our current understanding, improving the identification and characterization of clinically relevant molecules or pathways responsible for progressive fibrotic diseases and use of the robust preclinical model system to test these will be required to improve the drug development pipeline for pulmonary fibrosis. Combination of appropriate preclinical models with ex vivo (precision-cut lung slices) or in vitro models will benefit high-throughput drug discovery and validation of drug effects.

An evaluation of reports of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin-association neuropsychiatric toxicities, long-term disability, and aortic aneurysms/dissections disseminated by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

Introduction: Ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin belong to the fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics and are amongst the most commonly prescribed antibiotics. In 2018 and 2019, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) requested that manufacturers harmonize FQ safety information related to neuropsychiatric, aortic dissection, and long-term disability. The authors hypothesize that FDA and EMA epidemiologists support a strong association between these drugs and the three toxicities. Areas covered: Studies of FQ-associated neuropsychiatric toxicity, long-term disability, and aortic ruptures/dissections. Clinical sources include FDA Advisory Committee documents, a 2014 Citizen Petition filed with the FDA requesting safety information additions to FQ labels for neuropsychiatric toxicities (partially granted in 2018), an under-review Citizen Petition under review by the FDA requesting a FQ Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, and safety notifications from the EMA. Expert opinion: FDA and the EMA report state that neuropsychiatric toxicity, long-term disability, and aortic dissections//aneurysms occur with all FQs. Disability and neuropsychiatric toxicity can occur after one dose or several months after FQs. United States' and European' regulators warn physicians not to prescribe FQs for uncomplicated acute urinary tract infection, sinusitis, or bronchitis, unless other possible choices are tried first, as risks outweigh benefits in these settings.

A comparison between two physical therapy treatment programs for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized, controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare two physical therapy programs for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Scant evidence exists regarding effectiveness of nonsurgical management programs for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized to one of two 6-week physical therapy programs. One program included manual physical therapy, body weight supported treadmill walking, and exercise (Manual Physical Therapy, Exercise, and Walking Group), while the other included lumbar flexion exercises, a treadmill walking program, and subtherapeutic ultrasound (Flexion Exercise and Walking Group). Perceived recovery was assessed with a global rating of change scale. Secondary outcomes included: Oswestry, a numerical pain rating scale, a measure of satisfaction, and a treadmill test. Testing occurred at baseline, 6 weeks, and 1 year. Perceived recovery, pain, and other healthcare resources used were collected with a long-term follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: A greater proportion of patients in the manual physical therapy, exercise, and walking group reported recovery at 6 weeks compared with the flexion exercise and walking group (P = 0.0015), with a number needed to treat for perceived recovery of 2.6 (confidence interval, 1.8-7.8). At 1 year, 62% and 41% of the manual therapy, exercise, and walking group and the flexion exercise and walking group, respectively, still met the threshold for recovery. Improvements in disability, satisfaction, and treadmill walking tests favored the manual physical therapy, exercise, and walking group at all follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis can benefit from physical therapy. Additional gains may be realized with the inclusion of manual physical therapy interventions, exercise, and a progressive body-weight supported treadmill walking program.