Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. FUNDING: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility. CONCLUSION: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Incidence and risk factors for acute kidney injury in head and neck cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation with high-dose cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: Three-weekly high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m2) is considered the standard systemic regimen given concurrently with postoperative or definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with high-dose cisplatin is associated with significant acute and late toxicities, including acute kidney injury (AKI). The aims of this study were to investigate the incidence of AKI in patients with LA-SCCHN during and after treatment with high-dose cisplatin-based CRT, to identify risk factors for cisplatin-induced AKI, and to describe the impact of AKI on long-term renal function and treatment outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with measurements of renal function before CRT, weekly during CRT, every 1 or 2 days during hospitalizations, and 3 and 12 months after CRT in patients with LA-SCCHN. AKI was defined as increase in serum creatinine (sCr) of ≥1.5 times baseline or by ≥0.3 mg/dL (≥26.5 µmol/L) using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification. Logistic regression models were estimated to analyze renal function over time and to identify predictors for AKI. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients completed all measurements. AKI was reported in 85 patients (69%) with 112 episodes of AKI. Sixty of 85 patients experienced 1 AKI episode; 20 patients experienced ≥2 AKI episodes. Ninety-three (83%) AKI episodes were stage 1, 13 (12%) were stage 2, and 6 (5%) AKI episodes were stage 3. Median follow-up time was 29 months (Interquartile Range, IQR 22-33). Hypertension (Odds Ratio, OR 2.7, 95% Confidence Interval, CI 1.1-6.6; p = 0.03), and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV; OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6-11.3; p = 0.003) were associated with AKI. In patients with AKI, renal function was significantly more impaired at 3 and 12 months post-treatment compared to patients without AKI. AKI did not have a negative impact on treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: AKI occurred in 69% of patients with LA-SCCHN undergoing CRT with high-dose cisplatin. Long-term renal function was significantly more impaired in patients with AKI. Hypertension and CINV are significant risk factors. Optimizing prevention strategies for CINV are urgently needed.

Optimal treatment of opioid induced constipation in daily clinical practice - an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are prescribed in over 40% of patients with advanced cancer, but side effects occur frequently. In this study we evaluated the development and treatment of opioid induced constipation (OIC), and OIC resolving effect of methylnaltrexone for different opioid subtypes in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Patients with cancer using opioids were included in a retrospective chart analysis. Baseline characteristics, data on opioid use, laxative use, and OIC were collected. Patients with OIC who were prescribed methylnaltrexone, were included in a prospective observational trial (NCT01955213). RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 327 patients (pts) with cancer who were treated with opioids suffered from OIC (overall prevalence 12%; 95%-CI: 8-15%). The prevalence of OIC was similar in patients treated with oxycodone or fentanyl (12 of 81 pts. vs. 18 of 110 pts., RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.4-2.0). The morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly differ between opioid subtypes (fentanyl 89 mg (IQR 60-180) vs. oxycodone 40 mg (40-80), P = 0.231). Twenty-two individual patients (7%) were admitted for OIC. Most effective laxatives in admitted patients were enemas, methylnaltrexone, or 4-l polyethylene-glycol solution. In the prospective observational study, the effect of methylnaltrexone could be evaluated in 23 patients. Eleven patients achieved the primary endpoint of ≥2 laxation responses out of the first four doses methylnaltrexone, independent of opioid subtype. CONCLUSIONS: OIC is a burdensome clinical problem independent of opioid subtype. Timely intensification of prophylactic laxative treatment, especially when opioid doses increase, may help to prevent OIC. Clinically overt OIC requires a more intensive laxative regimen with for example methylnaltrexone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01955213 .

Accuracy of the Delirium Observational Screening Scale (DOS) as a screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) was developed to facilitate early recognition of delirium by nurses during routine clinical care. It has shown good validity in a variety of patient populations, but has not yet been validated in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, although the DOS is commonly used in this setting in daily practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DOS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer using the revised version of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R- 98) as the gold standard. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to the medical oncology ward were screened for delirium with the DOS and DRS-R-98. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the DOS were calculated, using a DOS score ≥ 3 as a cut-off for delirium. RESULTS: Ninety-five DOS negative and 98 DOS positive patients were identified. Sensitivity of the DOS, was > 99.9% (95%-CI, 95.8-100.0%), specificity was 99.5% (95%-CI 95.5-99.96%), PPV was 94.6% (95% CI 88.0-97.7), and NPV was > 99.9% (95% CI 96.1-100.0). CONCLUSIONS: The DOS is an accurate screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Since it has the benefit of being easily implicated in daily practice, we recommend to educate caregivers to screen patients with advanced cancer by DOS analysis. By early recognition and adequate treatment of this distressing delirium syndrome the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01539733 (Feb 27, 2012 - retrospectively registered), Netherlands Trial Register NTR2559 (Oct 7, 2010).

Identification of patients with cancer with a high risk to develop delirium.

Delirium deteriorates the quality of life in patients with cancer, but is frequently underdiagnosed and not adequately treated. In this study, we evaluated the occurrence of delirium and its risk factors in patients admitted to the hospital for treatment or palliative care in order to develop a prediction model to identify patients at high risk for delirium. In a period of 1.5 years, we evaluated the risk of developing delirium in 574 consecutively admitted patients with cancer to our academic oncology department with the Delirium Observation Screening Scale. Risk factors for delirium were extracted from the patient's chart. A delirium prediction algorithm was constructed using tree analysis, and validated with fivefold cross-validation. A total of 574 patients with cancer were acutely (42%) or electively (58%) admitted 1733 times. The incidence rate of delirium was 3.5 per 100 admittances. Tree analysis revealed that the predisposing factors of an unscheduled admittance and a metabolic imbalance accurately predicted the development of delirium. In this group the incidence rate of delirium was 33 per 100 patients (1:3). The AUC of the model was 0.81, and 0.65 after fivefold cross-validation. We identified that especially patients undergoing an unscheduled admittance with a metabolic imbalance do have a clinically relevant high risk to develop a delirium. Based on these factors, we propose to evaluate preventive treatment of these patients when admitted to the hospital in order to improve their quality of life.

Muscle mass as a target to reduce fatigue in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) reduces quality of life and the activity level of patients with cancer. Cancer related fatigue can be reduced by exercise interventions that may concurrently increase muscle mass. We hypothesized that low muscle mass is directly related to higher CRF. METHODS: A total of 233 patients with advanced cancer starting palliative chemotherapy for lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer were studied. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated as the patient's muscle mass on level L3 or T4 of a computed tomography scan, adjusted for height. Fatigue was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-fatigue questionnaire (cut-off for fatigue <34). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to study the association between SMI and CRF adjusting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: In this group of patients with advanced cancer, the median fatigue score was 36 (interquartile range 26-44). A higher SMI on level L3 was significantly associated with less CRF for men (B 0.447, P 0.004) but not for women (B - 0.401, P 0.090). No association between SMI on level T4 and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-fatigue score was found (n = 82). CONCLUSIONS: The association between SMI and CRF may lead to the suggestion that male patients may be able to reduce fatigue by exercise interventions aiming at an increased muscle mass. In women with advanced cancer, CRF is more influenced by other causes, because it is not significantly related to muscle mass. To further reduce CRF in both men and women with cancer, multifactorial assessments need to be performed in order to develop effective treatment strategies.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication. RESULTS: Our search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.

Screening and treatment of psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: study protocol of the TES trial.

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: Psychological distress occurs frequently in patients with cancer. Psychological distress includes mild and severe forms of both anxious and depressive mood states. Literature indicates that effective management of psychological distress seems to require targeted selection of patients (T), followed by enhanced care (E), and the application of evidence based interventions. Besides, it is hypothesized that delivering care according to the stepped care (S) approach results in an affordable program. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the (cost)-effectiveness of the TES program compared to usual care in reducing psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: This study is designed as a cluster randomized trial with 2 treatment arms: TES program for screening and treatment of psychological distress versus usual care. Sixteen hospitals participate in this study, recruiting patients with mCRC. Outcomes are evaluated at the beginning of chemotherapy and after 3, 10, 24, and 48 weeks. Primary outcome is the difference in treatment effect over time in psychological distress, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, patient evaluation of care, recognition and management of psychological distress, and societal costs. DISCUSSION: We created optimal conditions for an effective screening and treatment program for psychological distress in patients with mCRC. This involves targeted selection of patients, followed by enhanced and stepped care. Our approach will be thoroughly evaluated in this study. We expect that our results will contribute to the continuing debate on the (cost-) effectiveness of screening for and treatment of psychological distress in patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR4034.

Aiming for a better understanding and management of cancer-related fatigue.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a serious symptom of patients with cancer and deteriorates their daily quality of life. Whereas fatigue is a common problem in the general population, with a prevalence of about 30%, up to 99% of patients with cancer have fatigue of more intense severity. CRF is directly related to the biology of cancer, but it can also be caused by anticancer treatment. We reviewed current evidence about the potential pathophysiological mechanisms causing CRF. Clinical methods to determine the presence and severity of CRF and potential treatment options to reduce CRF will be discussed. After reading this review, the reader will have knowledge of the current understanding of CRF and will be able to give evidence-based advice to patients with CRF.