Patient-reported outcomes in high-risk HR+ /HER2- early breast cancer patients treated with endocrine therapy with or without palbociclib within the randomized PENELOPEB study.

BACKGROUND: The PENELOPEB trial investigating efficacy and safety of additional 1-year post-neoadjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy (ET) high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer patients failed to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between treatment groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received 13 cycles of palbociclib 125 mg/day (n = 631) or placebo (n = 619) orally for 3 out of 4 weeks + ET. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), its breast cancer (BR23) and fatigue (FA13) modules, mood questionnaire GAD7 and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) instruments were used for the assessment of quality of life (QoL). Repeated-measures mixed-effects models were used to evaluate differences in PRO, changes of PRO over time, and treatment-by-time interactions. RESULTS: 924 of 1250 patients (73.9%) completed baseline and at least one post-baseline questionnaire of all PRO instruments. General health status (GHS)/QoL based on EORTC QLQ-C30 was high in both arms (mean [SD]: palbociclib 70.1 [19.3], placebo 71.4 [18.8]) and was slightly higher in the placebo arm (LeastSquare mean difference: 0.82, p < 0.001). Higher fatigue was reported in the palbociclib arm (mean [SD]: 30.3 [23.8] vs. placebo 28.3 [22.7]; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed among FA13 physical, cognitive, and emotional fatigue subscales. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported global QoL and fatigue did not substantially change in both treatment arms. Slight differences in GHS, physical functioning, and fatigue favored the placebo arm statistically without achieving clinically meaningful thresholds.

Patient-reported Outcomes in Men with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Harboring DNA Damage Response Alterations Treated with Talazoparib: Results from TALAPRO-1.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib has shown antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and DNA damage response (DDR)/homologous recombination repair (HRR) alterations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain in patients who received talazoparib in the TALAPRO-1 study, with a special interest in patients harboring breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TALAPRO-1 is a single-arm, phase 2 study in men with mCRPC DDR alterations either directly or indirectly involved in HRR, who previously received one to two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for advanced prostate cancer and whose mCRPC progressed on one or more novel hormonal agents. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Men completed the European Quality-of-life Five-dimension Five-level scale (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at predefined time points during the study. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) population included men who completed a baseline and one or more postbaseline assessments before study end. Longitudinal mixed-effect models assuming an unstructured covariance matrix were used to estimate the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline for pain and general health status measurements among all patients and patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the 97 men in the PRO population treated with talazoparib (BRCA1/2, n = 56), the mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-5L Index improved (all patients, 0.05 [0.01, 0.08]; BRCA1/2 subset, 0.07 [0.03, 0.10]), as did the EQ-5D VAS scores (all patients, 5.42 [2.65, 8.18]; BRCA1/2 subset, 4.74 [1.07, 8.41]). Improvements in the estimated overall change from baseline (95% CI) in the mean worst pain were observed in all patients (-1.08 [-1.52, -0.65]) and the BRCA1/2 subset (-1.15 [-1.67, -0.62]). The probability of not having had experienced deterioration of worst pain by month 12 was 84% for all patients and 83% for the BRCA1/2 subset. CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated men with mCRPC and DDR/HRR alterations, talazoparib was associated with improved HRQoL in all patients and the BRCA1/2 subset. In both patient groups, worst pain improved from baseline and the probability of not experiencing a deterioration in worst pain with talazoparib was high. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that talazoparib was associated at least with no change or improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain burden in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA damage response/homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the TALAPRO-1 study. These findings in patient-reported HRQoL and pain complement the antitumor activity and tolerability profile of talazoparib.

A quality-adjusted survival time without symptoms or toxicities analysis of glasdegib plus low-dose cytarabine versus low-dose cytarabine as initial therapy for acute myeloid leukemia in patients who are not considered candidates for intensive chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized study, glasdegib (a hedgehog inhibitor) plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) significantly prolonged survival in comparison with LDAC in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) approach was used to evaluate comparative quality-adjusted survival. METHODS: Overall survival was partitioned into the following: time with any treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events (TOX); time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (TWiST); and time after treatment discontinuation due to insufficient clinical response, relapse, or death time after progression (REL). Q-TWiST was calculated by multiplying the restricted mean time in each state by respective utilities and then summing up the utility-adjusted time. RESULTS: At 20 months of follow-up, the survival probabilities for the glasdegib-LDAC arm and the LDAC arm were 28.2% and 7.9%, respectively. Glasdegib-LDAC patients (n = 78), in comparison with LDAC patients (n = 38), had significantly longer mean TWiST (+3.4 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-5.2 months) and TOX (+0.8 months; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6 months) and longer but nonsignificant REL (+0.3 months; 95% CI, -1.9 to 2.3 months). Q-TWiST was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.8 months) longer with glasdegib plus LDAC, and this translated into a 75% relative improvement in quality-adjusted survival with respect to LDAC. Results were robust to the length of follow-up (6-24 months) and remained significant when all adverse events, regardless of grade, were included. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that most of the survival benefit from glasdegib plus LDAC versus LDAC alone is TWiST, and this represents added time in relatively "good" health. These results support the clinical value of glasdegib plus LDAC as initial therapy for AML in patients for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option.

Outcomes in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups From the EMBRACA Study: Talazoparib vs Physician's Choice Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that causes death in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. METHODS: EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was a randomized phase III study comparing efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of talazoparib (1 mg) with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT: capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutation. Prespecified patient subgroups were analyzed for progression-free survival, objective response, clinical benefit, duration of response, and safety. PROs were evaluated in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups. RESULTS: Of 431 patients, 287 were randomly assigned to talazoparib and 144 to PCT. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed prolonged progression-free survival with talazoparib (HR+/HER2-: hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.71; TNBC: hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 0.87) and greater objective response rate (odds ratio = 1.97 to 11.89), clinical benefit rate (odds ratio = 2.05 to 7.77), and duration of response with talazoparib in all subgroups. PROs in HR+/HER2- and TNBC subgroups showed consistent overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration with talazoparib vs PCT. Across subgroups, common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea with talazoparib and neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea with PCT. Seven patients (2.4%) receiving talazoparib had grade II alopecia and 22.7% had grade I alopecia. CONCLUSIONS: Across all patient subgroups with gBRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib demonstrated clinically significant superiority in outcomes compared with PCT.

Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate, demonstrated superior clinical activity versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapies for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the phase 3 randomized controlled INO-VATE trial. The authors assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from that study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either InO (1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for ≤6 cycles) or SOC (fludarabine/cytarabine [ara-C]/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or ara-C plus mitoxantrone, or high-dose ara-C for ≤4 cycles) and completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions Questionnaires at baseline, on day 1 of each cycle, and at the end of treatment. Treatment differences in PROs were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects models with random intercepts and slopes. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates in the InO (n = 164) and SOC (n = 162) arms were 85% and 65%, respectively. Baseline scores were similar between arms. Patients who received InO reported better quality of life (QoL), functioning, and symptom scores (except for constipation and emotional functioning). Least-squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) differences in physical, role, and social functioning and in appetite loss were significant (6.9 [95% CI, 1.4-12.3], 11.4 [95% CI, 3.2-19.5], 8.4 [95% CI, 0.7-16.1], and -8.7 [95% CI, -16.0 to -1.4], respectively; all P < .05) and had exceeded the minimally important difference of 5. Mean treatment differences in favor of InO on the EuroQoL visual analog scale and the global health status/QoL, dyspnea, and fatigue scales reached or approached the minimally important difference of 5, although without statistical significance. No dimensions were significantly worse with InO versus SOC. CONCLUSIONS: The current PRO data support the favorable benefit/risk ratio of InO for the treatment of relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with superior clinical efficacy and better QoL. Cancer 2018;124:2151-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Fatigue in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib on an intermittent versus continuous dosing schedule in a randomized phase II trial.

A phase II trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found no benefit in efficacy or safety between patients receiving oral sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2-week off-treatment (Schedule 4/2) and those receiving 37.5 mg continuous daily sunitinib. We hypothesized that fatigue would have a more variable "on-off" effect with the 4/2 schedule. A total of 292 patients completed two fatigue-related items on Days 1 and 29 of each treatment cycle. Mean absolute slopes were compared across treatments. A planned analysis of item "I feel fatigued" demonstrated that the mean absolute slope was greater in Schedule 4/2 compared to continuous dosing (0.042 vs. 0.032, P = 0.003), and analysis based on the change from Day 1 to Day 29 (0.52 vs. 0.21, P = 0.002) and, separately, Day 29 to the next Day 1 (-0.38 vs. -0.05, P < 0.001) showed the changes to be significantly larger in Schedule 4/2 than continuous dosing. "I have a lack of energy" showed a similar pattern graphically, however, the planned analysis was not statistically significant based on the absolute slopes but was when Day 1 to Day 29 and Day 29 to Day 1 changes were analyzed separately. The 4/2 arm was associated with a greater degree of variability in fatigue reflecting a possible "on-off" effect whereby patients receiving the 4/2 schedule reported less fatigue at the beginning of each cycle compared to Day 29. The findings can inform care for individuals with advanced RCC receiving intermittent dosing of sunitinib.

Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is 100% bioavailable in oral and intravenous formulations. In a recent prospective, randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), linezolid achieved clinical and microbiologic success comparable to appropriately dosed intravenous vancomycin. Although patients were randomly assigned to receive linezolid or vancomycin, the protocol allowed patients to start therapy using oral or intravenous linezolid on the basis of investigator discretion and patient ability to tolerate oral medication. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of linezolid when administered orally in adults with cSSTI caused by MRSA. In this retrospective analysis, we examined data collected from the aforementioned trial to compare outcomes in patients who received either oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin therapy. METHODS: This study analyzed outcomes in patients who received treatment for 7 to 14 days with either oral linezolid (600 mg q12h; n = 95) or intravenous vancomycin (15 mg/kg q12h, adjusted for creatinine clearance and trough concentration; n = 210). By design, these groups were not randomized. Propensity score matching on baseline variables was used to balance these groups by identifying a comparable group of patients who received vancomycin therapy and comparing them with patients who received oral linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates at the end of treatment and the end of the study (EOS) were then directly compared between the groups using matched-pair logistic regression. The tolerability of the 2 treatments (within this matched group) was also described. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in each treatment group. At EOS, the odds ratio for clinical success of oral linezolid therapy vs intravenous vancomycin therapy was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.3-12.0; P = 0.01), and the odds ratio for microbiologic success at EOS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P = 0.01). Overall rates of adverse events in each group were consistent with reported safety profiles for each drug. CONCLUSION: A favorable clinical cure rate was achieved with oral linezolid therapy when compared with intravenous vancomycin therapy in propensity score-matched patients with cSSTI proved to be caused by MRSA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087490.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: This open-label study compared oral or intravenous linezolid with intravenous vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS: Patients with proven MRSA cSSTI were randomized to receive linezolid or vancomycin. Clinical and microbiologic outcomes, duration of antimicrobial therapy, length of hospital stay, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, the rate of clinical success was similar in linezolid- and vancomycin-treated patients (P = .249). The rate of success was significantly higher in linezolid-treated patients in the modified intent-to-treat population (P = .048). The microbiologic success rate was higher for linezolid at the end of treatment (P < .001) and was similar at the end of the study (P = .127). Patients receiving linezolid had a significantly shorter length of stay and duration of intravenous therapy than patients receiving vancomycin. Both agents were well tolerated. Adverse events were similar to each drug's established safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid is an effective alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of cSSTI caused by MRSA.

Azithromycin extended release vs amoxicillin/clavulanate: symptom resolution in acute sinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare early symptom resolution with a single 2-g dose of azithromycin extended release or 10 days of amoxicillin/clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg every 12 hours in patients with acute sinusitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, observational study to mimic "real-world" conditions, including patients with symptoms of acute bacterial sinusitis lasting between 7 and 30 days. Key symptoms were assessed twice daily by patient diary, and patients were interviewed by telephone at 12 and 28 days. The primary end point was symptom resolution at 5 days, defined as reporting "no problem" with at least 3 of 4 diary symptoms in 2 consecutive measures in the per-protocol population. Secondary end points included additional antibiotic use, sinusitis-related quality of life, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-eight patients were randomized to a single dose of azithromycin extended release and 371 to 10 days of amoxicillin/clavulanate. In the per-protocol population at day 5, 70/236 patients (29.7%) in the azithromycin extended release arm and 45/238 patients (18.9%) in the amoxicillin/clavulanate arm had resolution of symptoms (difference = 10.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-18.4%). By day 28, 26/236 patients (11.0%) in the azithromycin extended release arm and 27/238 patients (11.3%) in the amoxicillin/clavulanate arm had used additional antibiotics (difference = -0.4%; 95% CI: -6.1% to 5.3%). Additional physician visits, quality of life, and overall satisfaction were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: More patients randomized to azithromycin extended release experienced symptom resolution at day 5 than those randomized to amoxicillin/clavulanate, without experiencing differences in second antibiotic use at 28 days.

Early microbiological response to linezolid vs vancomycin in ventilator-associated pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical trial compared the early microbiological efficacy of linezolid (LZD) therapy with that of vancomycin (VAN) therapy in patients with MRSA VAP. METHODS: A total of 149 patients with suspected MRSA VAP were randomized to receive either LZD, 600 mg, or VAN, 1 g every 12 h. Patients with baseline bronchoscopic BAL (BBAL) fluid quantitative culture findings that were positive for MRSA (>or= 10(4) cfu/mL) comprised the study population. The primary outcome was microbiological response (

Azithromycin combination therapy with artesunate or quinine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in adults: a randomized, phase 2 clinical trial in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Because antimalarial drug resistance is spreading, there is an urgent need for new combination treatments for malaria, which kills >1 million people every year. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that is particularly attractive as an antimalarial because of its safety in children and the extensive experience with its use during pregnancy. METHODS: We undertook a randomized, controlled, 28-day inpatient trial involving patients with acute, uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. We compared the safety and efficacy of 2 azithromycin-artesunate combinations and 2 azithromycin-quinine regimens in adults with malaria. Treatments were as follows: cohort 1 received 3 days of azithromycin (750 mg twice daily) plus artesunate (100 mg twice daily), cohort 2 received 3 days of azithromycin (1000 mg once daily) plus artesunate (200 mg once daily), cohort 3 received 3 days of azithromycin (750 mg twice daily) plus quinine (10 mg/kg twice daily), and cohort 4 received 3 days of azithromycin (500 mg 3 times daily) plus quinine (10 mg/kg 3 times daily). The enrollment target was 25 evaluable subjects per group. RESULTS: The 28-day cure rates were similarly high in the artesunate and the standard-dose quinine cohorts: 92.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.0%-99.0%), 88.9% (95% CI, 70.8%-97.6%), and 92.0% (95% CI, 74.0%-99.0%), for cohorts 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Late R1 treatment failures were seen in each of the artesunate and the standard-dose quinine cohorts. The cure rate for cohort 3 was 73.3% (95% CI, 44.9%-92.2%). In this cohort, 3 early treatment failures led to the termination of enrollment after 16 subjects had been enrolled. With mean parasite and fever clearance times (+/-SD) of 34+/-13 h and 20+/-20 h, the artesunate combinations were found to have led to a significantly (P<.001) faster clinical and parasitological improvement than occurred in the quinine cohorts (74+/-32 h and 43+/-37 h, respectively). Treatment-related adverse events were significantly more common in the quinine cohorts (P<.001). No deaths or drug-related serious adverse events were observed. In vitro results suggest that the treatment failures--particularly in the low-dose quinine cohort--were associated with decreased susceptibility to quinine, as well as with mefloquine cross-resistance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that azithromycin-artesunate, even when given only once daily for 3 days, and azithromycin-quinine, given 3 times daily, are safe and efficacious combination treatments for uncomplicated falciparum malaria, and they deserve additional study in special patient populations.

Risk factors for Helicobacter pylori resistance in the United States: the surveillance of H. pylori antimicrobial resistance partnership (SHARP) study, 1993-1999.

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment antimicrobial resistance has an important impact on the efficacy of many Helicobacter pylori treatment regimens. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of H. pylori resistance to antimicrobials in the United States, to characterize risk factors associated with H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, and to explore the association between drug utilization and antimicrobial resistance patterns over time. DESIGN: Meta-analysis using patient-level data. SETTING: 20 nationwide trials of H. pylori eradication. PATIENTS: 3624 men and women, each of whom contributed one isolate. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin, according to geographic region, age, sex, study year, ethnicity, ulcer status, test method, and study. RESULTS: Overall resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin was 10.1% (95% CI, 9.1% to 11.1% [360 of 3571 patients]), 36.9% (CI, 35.1% to 38.7% [1063 of 2883 patients]), and 1.4% (CI, 1.0% to 1.8% [48 of 3486 patients]), respectively. In multivariable analyses, multiple risk factors were associated with resistance to individual agents. Clarithromycin resistance was significantly associated with geographic region (P = 0.050), older age (P < 0.001), female sex (P < 0.001), inactive ulcer disease (P < 0.001), and study (P = 0.010). Metronidazole resistance was significantly associated with female sex (P < 0.001), earlier year of study enrollment (P = 0.036), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), use of an epsilometer test (P = 0.002), and study (P < 0.001). Amoxicillin resistance was low and was not significantly associated with any risk factor. In the 1990s, when rates for use of oral macrolides and metronidazole were relatively stable, clarithromycin resistance rates were stable and metronidazole resistance rates varied. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider risk factors for antimicrobial resistance when deciding which patients should have susceptibility testing and when choosing appropriate H. pylori treatments in the empirical setting.