Improved benefit of continuing luspatercept therapy: sub-analysis of patients with lower-risk MDS in the MEDALIST study.

Red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC-TI) is an important goal in treating lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with ring sideroblasts. In the phase 3 MEDALIST study, RBC-TI of ≥ 8 weeks was achieved by significantly more luspatercept- versus placebo-treated patients in the first 24 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated RBC transfusion units and visits based on patients' baseline transfusion burden level and the clinical benefit of luspatercept treatment beyond week 25 in initial luspatercept nonresponders (patients who did not achieve RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks by week 25) but continued luspatercept up to 144 weeks. RBC transfusion burden, erythroid response, serum ferritin levels, and hemoglobin levels relative to baseline were evaluated. Through week 25, fewer RBC transfusion units and visits were observed in luspatercept-treated patients versus placebo, regardless of baseline transfusion burden. This continued through 144 weeks of luspatercept treatment, particularly in patients with low baseline transfusion burden. Sixty-eight patients were initial nonresponders at week 25 but continued treatment; most (81%) received the maximum dose of luspatercept (1.75 mg/kg). Sixteen percent achieved RBC-TI for ≥ 8 weeks during weeks 25-48, 26% had reduced RBC transfusion burden, 10% achieved an erythroid response, 44% had reduced serum ferritin, and hemoglobin levels increased an average of 1.3 g/dL from baseline. These data have implications for clinical practice, as transfusion units and visits are less in luspatercept-treated patients through week 25 regardless of baseline transfusion burden, and continuing luspatercept beyond week 25 can potentially provide additional clinical benefits for initial nonresponders. Trial registration: NCT02631070.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Ring Sideroblasts Treated with Luspatercept in the MEDALIST Phase 3 Trial.

Patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) often experience chronic anemia and long-term red blood cell transfusion dependence associated with significant burden on clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. In the MEDALIST trial (NCT02631070), luspatercept significantly reduced transfusion burden in patients with lower-risk MDS who had ring sideroblasts and were refractory to, intolerant to, or ineligible for prior treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. We evaluated the effect of luspatercept on HRQoL in patients enrolled in MEDALIST using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QOL-E questionnaire. Change in HRQoL was assessed every 6 weeks in patients receiving luspatercept with best supportive care (+ BSC) and placebo + BSC from baseline through week 25. No clinically meaningful within-group changes and between-group differences across all domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QOL-E were observed. On one item of the QOL-E MDS-specific disturbances domain, patients treated with luspatercept reported marked improvements in their daily life owing to the reduced transfusion burden, relative to placebo. Taken together with previous reports of luspatercept + BSC reducing transfusion burden in patients from baseline through week 25 in MEDALIST, these results suggest luspatercept may offer a treatment option for patients that reduces transfusion burden while providing stability in HRQoL.

Safety and tolerability of switching to asenapine from other antipsychotic agents: pooled results from two randomized multicenter trials in stable patients with persistent negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, clinicians often need to switch antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia to optimize treatment outcomes. Here, we describe the safety and tolerability of switching existing antipsychotic treatments to asenapine or olanzapine monotherapy using various switching regimens. METHODS: Data were pooled from 949 patients in two 26-week randomized double-blind studies. Patients with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia, stable for at least 5 months prior to screening and 1 additional month before randomization, were randomized to and treated with either asenapine (n = 485) or olanzapine (n = 464), and were tapered off existing antipsychotic(s) at variable rates within 28 days. RESULTS: Prior to randomization, most patients were treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) (asenapine: 79.6%; olanzapine: 78.2%) and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) (31.1%; 29.7%), while depot formulations were used by 12.4% and 11.4%, respectively. Median time to taper off previous antipsychotics was 7 days, with approximately 40% of patients abruptly discontinuing their previous medication. Similar percentages of patients in each group reported at least one adverse event (AE) (asenapine: 76.9%; olanzapine: 75.2%). The majority of AEs occurred within the first 28 days. The most frequently reported AEs were somnolence, insomnia, and headache. The incidence of AEs in patients switching from SGAs, FGAs, or depot medications was similar between asenapine and olanzapine (77.5% vs 74.6%, 75.5% vs 79.7%, 85.0% vs 86.8%, respectively). AEs were more frequent in subjects previously treated with two antipsychotics (asenapine: 79.4%; olanzapine: 83.9%) versus one antipsychotic (asenapine: 76.3%; olanzapine: 72.2%) in the switch period. CONCLUSION: The presented data from post hoc pooled analyses may provide practical guidance for physicians switching partially stabilized patients with schizophrenia and persistent negative symptoms to asenapine or olanzapine.

Asenapine versus olanzapine in people with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Two randomized, double-blind, 26-week core studies (Eastern [EH] and Western Hemisphere [WH]) tested the hypothesis that asenapine is superior to olanzapine for persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia; 26-week extension studies assessed the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of these agents. In the core studies, 949 people were randomized to asenapine (n = 241 and 244) or olanzapine (n = 240 and 224); 26-week completion rates with asenapine were 64.7% and 49.6% (olanzapine, 80.4% and 63.8%) in the EH and WH, respectively. In the EH and WH extensions, respectively (asenapine, n = 134 and 86; olanzapine, n = 172 and 110), 52-week completion rates were 84.3% and 66.3% with asenapine (olanzapine, 89.0% and 80.9%). Asenapine was not superior to olanzapine in change in the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score in either core study, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine at week 52 in the WH extension study. Olanzapine was associated with modest, but significantly greater, changes in PANSS positive subscale score at various assessment times in both core studies and the WH extension study. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between treatments across studies. Weight gain was consistently lower with asenapine. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse event incidence was higher with asenapine (EH: 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-12.5%; WH: 16.4%; 95% CI, 11.9%-21.6%) than olanzapine (EH: 3.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-6.4%; WH: 12.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.0%), but Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale-Abbreviated total score changes did not significantly differ between treatments. In conclusion, asenapine superiority over olanzapine was not observed in the core studies. Both treatments improved persistent negative symptoms, but discontinuation rates were higher with asenapine.