An observer-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 1, single ascending dose study of dengue monoclonal antibody in healthy adults in Australia

BACKGROUND

Dengue is highly prevalent in Asia and Latin America and has no specific dengue antiviral treatment. A recombinant monoclonal antibody (VIS513) that neutralises all four serotypes of the dengue virus has been developed in India. After confirmation of safety and efficacy in preclinical studies, it was tested in a first-in-human study to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

This was a partially blind (observer-blind), randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 1, single ascending dose study in Australia. Participants were dengue naive, healthy adults (aged 18-45 years) with no clinically significant disorders or immunosuppressive conditions. Four dose levels of dengue monoclonal antibody (ie, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 7 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg; n=4 for 1 mg/kg and n=10 each for 3 mg/kg, 7 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg doses) were assessed in a dose-ascending way with a placebo control (n=2 for each dose cohort, total n=6) for each cohort except for 1 mg/kg. Within each cohort, participants were first randomly assigned (1:1) in a sentinel sub-cohort and then randomly assigned (9:1) in an expansion sub-cohort to dengue monoclonal antibody or placebo except for the 1 mg/kg cohort. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked and treatment administrators were not masked. 40 participants received a single intravenous injection or infusion of either dengue monoclonal antibody or placebo over a period of 3 min to 2 h and were followed up until day 85. The primary outcomes were proportion of participants with adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) up to 84 days after dosing whereas the secondary outcomes were to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of dengue monoclonal antibody and to assess the presence of anti-drug antibody (ADA) to dengue monoclonal antibody. All participants were included in the safety analysis and the pharmacokinetic population involved participants receiving dengue monoclonal antibody. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883620.

FINDINGS

Between March 22 and Dec 23, 2019, 40 healthy adults were randomly assigned and all completed the study. There were no SAEs reported. None of the placebo recipients (n=6) reported any adverse events. 31 (91%) of 34 participants receiving dengue monoclonal antibody reported 143 adverse events (1 mg/kg: four [100%] of four participants; 3 mg/kg: ten [100%] of ten participants; 7 mg/kg: seven [70%] of ten participants; 12 mg/kg: ten [100%] of ten participants). Of these 143 adverse events, 80 were treatment-related adverse events in 28 (82%) of 34 participants. Headache (16 [47%] of 34), infusion reaction (11 [32%] of 34), lymphopenia (seven [21%] of 34), fatigue (five [15%] of 34), and pyrexia (four [12%] of 34) were the most common reactions. Infusion reactions were reduced in the 7 mg/kg (two [20%] of ten participants) and 12 mg/kg (three [30%] of ten) cohorts with paracetamol premedication compared with the 3 mg/kg cohort (five [50%] of ten). The majority of adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2 in severity, and resolved completely. Median maximum serum concentrations ranged from 28 μg/mL (1 mg/kg) to 525 μg/mL (12 mg/kg). The median elimination half-life ranged from 775 h (1 mg/kg) to 878 h (12 mg/kg). No ADA against dengue monoclonal antibody was detected.

INTERPRETATION

Dengue monoclonal antibody was safe and well tolerated. It showed a dose-proportionate increase in pharmacokinetic exposure. These data support further evaluation of dengue monoclonal antibody in patients with dengue for safety and efficacy.

FUNDING

Serum Institute of India.

Management of infusion-related reactions in cancer therapy: strategies and challenges

Several anticancer therapies have the potential to cause infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the form of adverse events that typically occur within minutes to hours after drug infusion. IRRs can range in severity from mild to severe anaphylaxis-like reactions. Careful monitoring at infusion initiation, prompt recognition, and appropriate clinical assessment of the IRR and its severity, followed by immediate management, are required to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Lack of standardization in the prevention, management, and reporting of IRRs across cancer-treating institutions represents not only a quality and safety gap but also a disparity in cancer care. The present article, supported by recently published data, was developed to standardize these procedures across institutions and provide a useful tool for health care providers in clinical practice to recognize early signs and symptoms of an IRR and promptly and appropriately manage the event.

Allergy in Cancer Care: Antineoplastic Therapy-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

As the backbone of oncological treatments, systemic chemotherapy is still one of the main pawns in cancer care, alone or in combination with newer targeted agents. All chemotherapy agents can be associated with a type of adverse event called an infusion reaction, which can be characterized as unpredictable, non-dose related, and unexplained by the cytotoxic profile of the drug. For some of these events, a certain immunological mechanism can be identified by blood or skin testing. In this case, we can speak of true hypersensitivity reactions that occur as a response to an antigen/allergen. The current work summarizes the main antineoplastic therapy agents and their susceptibility to induce hypersensitivity reactions and also includes a review of clinical presentation, diagnostic methods in hypersensitivity reactions, and perspectives to overcome these negative events in the treatment of patients suffering from various types of cancer.

A phase I study of IMC-001, a PD-L1 blocker, in patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors

Introduction IMC-001 is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to human PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1). This study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of IMC-001 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Materials and Methods This open-labeled phase I study used a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, with doses ranging from 2 to 20 mg/kg. IMC-001 was administered intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dose-limiting toxicity window was defined as 21 days from the first dose. Results Fifteen subjects were included in 5 dose-escalation cohorts. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common adverse events (AEs) were general weakness, decreased appetite, fever, and cough. No grade 4 or 5 treatment emergent AEs were reported during the study. One subject in the 2 mg/kg cohort showed grade 2 immune-induced thyroiditis and diabetes mellitus suspected to be related to IMC-001. Over the dose range of 2-20 mg/kg IMC-001, the AUC0-14d, AUC0-∞, and Cmax generally increased in a dose-proportional manner for each step of dose escalation. Of the 15 enrolled patients, 1 subject with rectal cancer showed a partial response, and the disease control rate was 33.3%. Conclusions IMC-001 demonstrated a favorable safety profile up to 20 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks and showed preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, 20 mg/kg was selected as the recommended phase II dose. Clinical trial identification NCT03644056 (date of registration: August 23, 2018).

Immunology and Immunotherapy in Critical Care: An Overview

Until recently, immunology was not a major focus of attention in the acute and critical care setting. With the evolution of immunotherapy, however-including the development of monoclonal antibodies, checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cellular therapies-an in-depth understanding of the immune system has become necessary to properly care for acutely ill patients. Lymphocytes (ie, T cells and B cells) play a major role in the daily functioning of the immune response. The interaction of these cells in protecting the body against infection and foreign substances is complicated and is the basis for many of the innovations in immunology and cancer treatment. This article explores basic immunology concepts, new drug categories, and adoptive cellular therapies that are at the forefront of cancer therapy.

Cetirizine versus diphenhydramine in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hypersensitivity reactions

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the role of cetirizine compared to diphenhydramine as premedications for patients receiving paclitaxel, cetuximab, and rituximab infusions. Historically, diphenhydramine has been linked with more sedation in comparison to cetirizine; however, it is unknown if cetirizine can replace diphenhydramine in the prevention of hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study designed to assess infusion reactions occurring in patients receiving diphenhydramine or cetirizine premedication for rituximab, paclitaxel, or cetuximab therapies. Infusion reactions were defined as various symptoms such as flushing, itching, alterations in heart rate and blood pressure, and dyspnea plus the clinical setting of a concurrent or very recent infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were evaluated in this study with 83 patients receiving cetirizine and 124 diphenhydramine patients. Overall, the percentage of patients with at least one chemotherapy-related infusion event in the cetirizine group was 19.3% (95% CI 11.4-29.4) compared to diphenhydramine group 24.2% (95% CI 17.0-32.7), P = 0.40. Of the patients who received cetirizine and then experienced an event in the first cycle, 41.7% (95% CI 13.7-74.3) of the events were due to paclitaxel, 50.0% (95% CI 19.4-80.6) were due to rituximab, and 8.3% (95% CI 0.1-43.6) were due to cetuximab. Of the patients who received diphenhydramine and then experienced an event in the first cycle, 26.1% (95% CI 5.7-51.4) were due to paclitaxel, 73.9% (95% CI 48.6-94.3) were due to rituximab and none due to cetuximab.

CONCLUSION

Cetirizine appears to be a viable substitute for diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusions reactions with cetuximab, paclitaxel, and rituximab infusions in adults. Prospective studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of cetirizine compared with diphenhydramine in the prevention of chemotherapy-related infusion reactions.

Cutaneous Adverse Events of Targeted Therapies for Hematolymphoid Malignancies

The identification of oncogenic drivers of liquid tumors has led to the rapid development of targeted agents with distinct cutaneous adverse event (AE) profiles. The diagnosis and management of these skin toxicities has motivated a novel partnership between dermatologists and oncologists in developing supportive oncodermatology clinics. In this article we review the current state of knowledge of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and management of the most common and significant cutaneous AEs observed during treatment with targeted therapies for hematologic and lymphoid malignancies. We systematically review according to drug-targeting pathway the cutaneous AE profiles of these drugs, and offer insight when possible into whether pharmacologic target versus immunologic modulation primarily underlie presentation. We include discussion of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib), blinatumomab, ibrutinib, idelalisib, anti-B cell antibodies (rituximab, ibritumomab, obinutuzumab, ofatumumab, tositumomab), immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), alemtuzumab, brentuximab, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib). We highlight skin reactions seen with antiliquid but not solid tumor agents, draw attention to serious cutaneous AEs that might require therapy modification or cessation, and offer management strategies to permit treatment tolerability. We emphasize the importance of early diagnosis and treatment to minimize disruptions to care, optimize prognosis and quality of life, and promptly address life-threatening skin or infectious events. This evolving partnership between oncologists and dermatologists in the iterative characterization and management of skin toxicities will contribute to a better understanding of these drugs' cutaneous targets and improved patient care.

Acute hypertension during ramucirumab infusion in two patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer

Ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, in combination with paclitaxel is becoming part of standard second-line systemic therapy for advanced oesophagogastric cancer, based on the results of the REGARD and RAINBOW trials. Common well-known side effects of VEGF pathway inhibitors are hypertension and infusion-related reactions. Here, we describe hypertension as the predominant feature of an infusion-related reaction in 2 patients with metastasised oesophagogastric carcinoma treated with ramucirumab and paclitaxel as second-line treatment and propose possible explanations of this side effect previously undescribed for ramucirumab.

Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: Acute, Preventive, and Symptomatic

OPINION STATEMENT

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare, autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that primarily attacks the optic nerves and spinal cord leading to blindness and paralysis. The spectrum of the disease has expanded based on the specificity of the autoimmune response to the aquaporin-4 water channel on astrocytes. With wider recognition of NMOSD, a standard of care for treatment of this condition has condition based on a growing series of retrospective and prospective studies. This review covers the present state of the field in the treatment of acute relapses, preventive approaches, and therapies for symptoms of NMOSD.

High incidence and severity of injection site reactions in the first cycle compared with subsequent cycles of subcutaneous bortezomib

Subcutaneous (sc) administration of bortezomib (Bor) has become more common than intravenous (iv) administration in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), because scBor results in a lower incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy and shows efficacy equivalent to ivBor. Bor is an irritant cytotoxic agent when it extravasates from the vasculature. Therefore, it is recommended that sc injections of Bor should be delivered on a rotating basis across eight sites on the abdomen and thighs. Previously, we reported that sc injections of Bor in the abdomen caused fewer grade 2 injection site reactions (ISRs) than those in the thigh. In the present study, we recruited more patients and expanded the scale of our analysis into ISRs following treatment with 300 scBor injections in 20 patients. ISRs of ≥grade 2 were documented in 12 of 109 (11.0 %) thigh injections, but only in three of 191 (1.6 %) abdominal injections (p < 0.001). Interestingly, ISRs of ≥grade 2 occurred more frequently in the first cycle than in the second and subsequent cycles (16.3 vs. 0.91 %, p < 0.001). These results clearly indicate that closer attention should be paid to ISR management, particularly with regard to the first cycle of scBor administration in the thigh. To our knowledge, this is the first report showing that ≥grade 2 ISRs are more common in the first cycle compared with subsequent cycles of scBor in the treatment of MM.

Bone marrow involvement is predictive of infusion-related reaction during rituximab administration in patients with B cell lymphoma

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate risk factors for infusion-related reaction (IRR) following rituximab administration in patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with newly diagnosed B cell lymphoma who have received rituximab-included immunochemotherapy with appropriate premedication and commonly used schedule of infusion rate. IRRs were graded by review of the patients' electronic medical record according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients were included in the analysis and most of the patients (150; 88.8 %) had diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Thirty-six patients (21.3 %) had any grade of IRRs: 23 patients were grade (G) 1 (13.6 %), 13 had ≥G2 IRRs (7.7 %), and only 4 had ≥G3 IRRs (2.4 %). All except one patient had IRR during the first cycle and only two had repetitive IRR thereafter. Bone marrow (BM) involvement was the strongest risk factor for IRR in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 4.06, 95 % confidence interval 1.67-9.89; p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis confined to patients with DLBCL showed very similar results when compared with the entire population, and patients with DLBCL who had ≥G2 IRR showed shorter event-free and overall survival when compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

BM involvement is predictive of occurrence of IRR during rituximab administration in patients with B cell lymphoma. More intensive premedication and careful observation for IRR during rituximab administration are required for patients with B cell lymphoma who have BM involvement.

Therapeutic antibodies against cancer

Antibody-based therapeutics against cancer are highly successful and currently enjoy unprecedented recognition of their potential; 13 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved for clinical use in the European Union and in the United States. Bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab had sales in 2010 of more than $5 billion each. Hundreds of mAbs, including bispecific mAbs and multispecific fusion proteins, mAbs conjugated with small-molecule drugs, and mAbs with optimized pharmacokinetics, are in clinical trials. However, deeper understanding of mechanisms is needed to overcome major problems including resistance to therapy, access to targets, complexity of biological systems, and individual variations.

A phase I first-in-human study of TRC105 (Anti-Endoglin Antibody) in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

TRC105 is a chimeric IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds CD105 (endoglin). This first-in-human, phase I, open-label study assessed safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of TRC105 in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received escalating doses of intravenous TRC105 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using a standard 3 + 3 phase I design.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were treated with escalating doses of TRC105. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded at 15 mg/kg every week because of dose-limiting hypoproliferative anemia. TRC105 exposure increased with increasing dose, and continuous serum concentrations that saturate CD105 receptors were maintained at 10 mg/kg weekly (the MTD) and 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Common adverse events including anemia, telangiectasias, and infusion reactions reflected the mechanism of action of the drug. Antibodies to TRC105 were not detected in patients treated with TRC105 from Chinese hamster ovary cells being used in ongoing phase Ib and phase II studies. Stable disease or better was achieved in 21 of 45 evaluable patients (47%), including two ongoing responses at 48 and 18 months.

CONCLUSION

TRC105 was tolerated at 10 mg/kg every week and 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks, with a safety profile that was distinct from that of VEGF inhibitors. Evidence of clinical activity was seen in a refractory patient population. Ongoing clinical trials are testing TRC105 in combination with chemotherapy and VEGF inhibitors and as a single agent in prostate, ovarian, bladder, breast, and hepatocellular cancer.

Central nervous system complications of cancer therapy

As more effective therapies prolong the survival of patients with cancer, therapy-related toxicities, particularly those affecting the central nervous system (CNS) become increasingly important. CNS complications can cause significant morbidity and can limit the dose or duration of otherwise effective treatments. Because effects on the CNS are disabling and often permanent and treatments remain limited, it is important that clinicians recognize the effects of cancer therapy on the CNS. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation are well-known causes of neurotoxicity, but there is increasing recognition that novel therapies are also sources of adverse effects on the CNS. This review highlights the CNS complications that result from radiation, chemotherapy, and novel therapeutics.

Cancer immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy consists of approaches that modify the host immune system, and/or the utilization of components of the immune system, as cancer treatment. During the past 25 years, 17 immunologic products have received regulatory approval based on anticancer activity as single agents and/or in combination with chemotherapy. These include the nonspecific immune stimulants BCG and levamisole; the cytokines interferon-α and interleukin-2; the monoclonal antibodies rituximab, ofatumumab, alemtuzumab, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab; the radiolabeled antibodies Y-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan and I-131 tositumomab; the immunotoxins denileukin diftitox and gemtuzumab ozogamicin; nonmyeloablative allogeneic transplants with donor lymphocyte infusions; and the anti-prostate cancer cell-based therapy sipuleucel-T. All but two of these products are still regularly used to treat various B- and T-cell malignancies, and numerous solid tumors, including breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, melanoma, kidney, glioblastoma, bladder, and head and neck. Positive randomized trials have recently been reported for idiotype vaccines in lymphoma and a peptide vaccine in melanoma. The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilumumab, which blocks regulatory T-cells, is expected to receive regulatory approval in the near future, based on a randomized trial in melanoma. As the fourth modality of cancer treatment, biotherapy/immunotherapy is an increasingly important component of the anticancer armamentarium.

Headache in patients with cancer

Contemporary cancer research has led to unparalleled advances in therapeutics and improved survival. Even as treatment options continue to improve, quality of life should remain a priority. Headache drastically impacts the quality of life of patients with cancer and has a wide etiological scope, making diagnosis a challenge. Intracranial mass lesions are only one cause; others include extracranial tumors, paraneoplastic processes, and the consequences of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions used in cancer care. Fortunately, cancer-related headache is treatable, but a sound understanding of the variable etiologies is crucial to appropriate diagnostic evaluation and treatment. In this review, we highlight the important causes of headache in the patient with cancer, and consider the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical course, and treatment options for each.

Infusion reactions: diagnosis, assessment, and management

Many cancer therapies administered by IV infusion, including monoclonal antibodies, have the potential for infusion reactions. All infusion reactions involve the immune system; however, some (anaphylactic) are allergic in nature and usually are mediated by immunoglobulin E (lgE), whereas others (anaphylactoid) are not true allergic reactions and are not mediated by lgE. Although reactions can be allergic or nonallergic, the clinical manifestations are the same and require prompt, accurate assessment and astute management to avoid severe adverse events, including fatality. Monoclonal antibodies have a unique side-effect profile that includes the potential for nonallergic infusion reactions caused by cytokine release. Understanding the pathophysiology underlying any infusion reaction will enhance decision making regarding rechallenge and thereby improve treatment outcomes. Rituximab is an example of a drug with the potential for varying types of infusion reactions. This article discusses oncology nurses' role in patient risk assessment, institution of prophylactic measures, administration monitoring, severity grading, management, and follow-up. This understanding will clarify new data regarding the safety of a rapid infusion schedule of rituximab.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I study of MEDI-545, an anti-interferon-alfa monoclonal antibody, in subjects with chronic psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety profile of MEDI-545, a fully human anti-IFN-alpha monoclonal antibody and to explore its effect on the involvement of type I IFN-alpha activity in the maintenance of established plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

We conducted an 18-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating study in 36 subjects with chronic plaque psoriasis. Subjects received one intravenous dose of MEDI-545 (0.3-30.0 mg/kg) or placebo. Study outcomes were safety profile, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and clinical effects.

RESULTS

There was no difference in adverse events between MEDI-545 and placebo. Two serious adverse events were reported; one drug-related hypotensive infusion reaction occurred in one subject in the 30.0 mg/kg MEDI-545 dose group, causing discontinuation of study drug in that subject and study dismissal of the other subjects in the same cohort; and a myocardial infarction occurred in one subject in the 10 mg/kg MEDI-545 dose group, which was considered to be unrelated to treatment. MEDI-545 was nonimmunogenic, had a half-life of 21 days, showed no significant inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature, and had no clinical activity.

LIMITATIONS

The study addressed only IFN-alpha and chronic psoriatic lesions.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of MEDI-545 supports further clinical development. IFN-alpha does not appear to be significantly involved in the maintenance of established plaque psoriasis.

Recommendations for the evaluation of risk and prophylaxis of tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) in adults and children with malignant diseases: an expert TLS panel consensus

Tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) is a life-threatening oncological emergency characterized by metabolic abnormalities including hyperuricaemia, hyperphosphataemia, hyperkalaemia and hypocalcaemia. These metabolic complications predispose the cancer patient to clinical toxicities including renal insufficiency, cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, neurological complications and potentially sudden death. With the increased availability of newer therapeutic targeted agents, such as rasburicase (recombinant urate oxidase), there are no published guidelines on the risk classification of TLS for individual patients at risk of developing this syndrome. We convened an international TLS expert consensus panel to develop guidelines for a medical decision tree to assign low, intermediate and high risk to patients with cancer at risk for TLS. Risk factors included biological evidence of laboratory TLS (LTLS), proliferation, bulk and stage of malignant tumour and renal impairment and/or involvement at the time of TLS diagnosis. An international TLS consensus expert panel of paediatric and adult oncologists, experts in TLS pathophysiology and experts in TLS prophylaxis and management, developed a final model of low, intermediate and high risk TLS classification and associated TLS prophylaxis recommendations.