Search

Background and Aims: Quality of life in patients with active Crohn's disease may be significantly reduced. We evaluated the effects of upadacitinib induction and maintenance therapy on fatigue, quality of life, and work productivity in the phase 3 trials U-EXCEL, U-EXCEED, and U-ENDURE., Methods: Clinical responders to upadacitinib 45 mg in U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED induction trials were re-randomised 1:1:1 to upadacitinib 30 mg, 15 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks of maintenance in U-ENDURE. Clinically meaningful improvements in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [IBDQ] response, IBDQ remission, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue], and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment were evaluated. Percentages of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvements were assessed at induction Weeks 4 and 12 and maintenance Week 52., Clinical Registration Number: U-EXCEED induction trial [NCT03345836], U-EXCEL induction trial [NCT03345849], U-ENDURE maintenance trial [NCT03345823]., Results: Analysis included 1021 and 502 patients assessed at induction and maintenance, respectively. In U-EXCEL, greater improvements [all p ≤ 0.001] in IBDQ response [71.0% vs 50.2%], IBDQ remission [44.2% vs 23.7%], and FACIT-Fatigue [42.0% vs 27.0%] were observed in upadacitinib-treated patients versus placebo at Week 4. Improvements in IBDQ response, IBDQ remission, and FACIT-Fatigue were similar or greater at Week 12. Clinically meaningful improvement in overall work impairment [52.1% vs 38.1%, p ≤ 0.05] was demonstrated at Week 12. Similar results were observed in U-EXCEED. Improvements were sustained through 52 weeks of upadacitinib maintenance treatment., Conclusions: In patients with active Crohn's disease, upadacitinib treatment relative to placebo significantly improved fatigue, quality of life, and work productivity as early as Week 4. These effects were sustained through 52 weeks of maintenance., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background: Randomised placebo-controlled trials for the induction of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remission involve potential harms to those receiving placebo. Whether these harms are also apparent with placebo during maintenance of remission trials in IBD is unclear. We aimed to examine the potential harms associated with receiving placebo in trials of licensed biologics and small molecules for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis and luminal Crohn's disease in a meta-analysis., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched several medical literature databases including MEDLINE (from Jan 1, 1946, to May 31, 2024), Embase and Embase Classic (Jan 1, 1947, to May 31, 2024), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to May 31, 2024, for randomised placebo-controlled trials of licensed biologics and small molecules for maintenance of remission in adults with IBD reporting data on adverse events over a period of 20 weeks or more. There were no language restrictions or prespecified exclusion criteria. We extracted summary data and pooled data using a random-effects model for any treatment-emergent adverse event, drug-related adverse event, infection, worsening of IBD activity, withdrawal due to adverse events, serious adverse events, serious infection, serious worsening of IBD activity, or venous thromboembolic events, reporting relative risks (RRs) for placebo versus active drug with 95% CIs for each outcomes. The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024542624)., Findings: Our search identified 10 826 citations, of which 45 trials including 16 562 patients (10 319 [62·3%] receiving active drug and 6243 [37·7%] placebo) were eligible. The risks of any treatment-emergent adverse event (7297/9546 [76·4%] patients on active drug vs 4415/5850 [75·5%] on placebo; RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·99-1·04; I 2 =47%), serious infection (260/10 242 [2·5%] vs 155/6149 [2·5%]; 0·97, 0·79-1·19; I 2 =0%), or venous thromboembolic event (12/4729 [0·3%] vs 9/2691 [0·3%]; 0·72, 0·31-1·66; I 2 =0%) were not significantly lower with active drug than placebo. The risks of any infection (3208/8038 [39·9%] vs 1713/4809 [35·6%]; 1·14, 1·05-1·23; I 2 =60%) or any drug-related adverse event (1094/2997 [36·5%] vs 609/1950 [31·2%]; 1·24, 1·02-1·50; I 2 =75%) were higher with active drug than placebo. However, the risks of any worsening of IBD activity (1038/8090 [12·8%] vs 1181/5191 [22·8%]; 0·58, 0·52-0·64; I 2 =40%), any withdrawal due to adverse events (610/10 282 [5·9%] vs 561/6207 [9·0%]; 0·71, 0·60-0·84; I 2 =43%), any serious adverse events (1066/10 292 [10·4%] vs 742/6198 [12·0%]; 0·85, 0·77-0·94; I 2 =17%), or any serious worsening of IBD activity (101/5707 [1·8%] vs 143/3640 [3·9%]; 0·55, 0·42-0·71; I 2 =0%) were lower with active drug than placebo. 21 randomised controlled trials were judged as low risk of bias across all domains., Interpretation: In maintenance of remission trials in IBD, placebo was associated with some clinically significant potential harms. Patients should be counselled about these before participating in clinical trials and consideration given to alternative designs to test novel drugs in IBD., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SD declares grants from The Helmsley Charitable Trust, Edinburgh, Lothians Health Foundation, Pathological Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Lord Leonard and Lady Estelle Wolfson Foundation; consulting fees from AbbVie; personal speaker fees from Janssen, Ferring, and Takeda; and meeting and travel grants from Janssen, Takeda, Lilly, and Dr Falk. JB received a grant from Crohn's and Colitis UK and speaker fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific and Takeda. JS has received speaker fees for Takeda, Sandoz, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; conference sponsorship from Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Jassen; and an unrestricted research grant from Tillots. BG has served as consultant to Galapagos, Pfizer, and AbbVie and as speaker for AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, and Galapagos, and has received support for attending meetings by Dr Falk, Galapagos, Takeda, and Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.)

Background: The phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical [overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient (HRd) population]. Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cut-off date, 8 April 2024)., Results: The median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23; P = 0.8834] for niraparib (n = 487) versus placebo (n = 246). In the HRd (n = 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n = 249) populations, the OS hazard ratios were 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) harboring pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, olaparib maintenance monotherapy (OMT) is a viable option. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of different BRCA1/2 PV in survival outcomes and safety of OMT in BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients, focusing on the type and location of PV., Methods: We assessed the outcomes of 100 BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients treated at our institute, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline and tumor BRCA1/2 genotyping was conducted using Illumina's next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Results: PFS and OS were significantly shorter in PSROC patients with PV in BRCA1 compared to those with PV in BRCA2 (PFS:14.0 vs. 38.8 months, p = 0.007, OS: 21.8 vs. 62.0 months, p = 0.011). Notably, there was a significant difference in PFS based on the intragenic location of BRCA1 PV, with shorter PFS in patients with 1st/2nd relapse, harboring PV in BRCA1 RING domain compared to those with PV in the DNA binding domain (DBD) and BRCT domains (12.4 vs. 23.0 months, p = 0.046). No differences in PFS and OS were observed between patients with germline versus somatic BRCA1/2 PV (PFS:14.9 vs.19.3, p = 0.316, OS: not reached vs. 25.8 months; p = 0.224). However, there were significant differences in the reasons for OMT discontinuation between patients with germline and somatic BRCA1/2 PV, primarily due to adverse side effects., Conclusions: In summary, the type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV provide additional insight into the expected survival outcomes of olaparib MT in PSROC patients., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN42408038, Name of registry: ISRCTN registry, Date of registration: 24/11/2015., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene ( BRCA ) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time., Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively)., Conclusion: CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objectives: Patterns of disease recurrence on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy are unclear and may affect subsequent treatment. This ad hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study evaluated patterns of initial recurrence in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC)., Methods: PRIMA included participants at high risk for disease progression. This ad hoc analysis only evaluated participants randomized to niraparib maintenance without evidence of disease at baseline. The number and site(s) of initial recurrent lesions at investigator-assessed progressive disease (PD) were evaluated., Results: Of the 314 niraparib-treated patients analyzed, 190 developed ≥1 new lesion (median number of new lesions, 1.0; interquartile range, 1-2). In total, 93.2% (177/190) of patients developed 1-3 lesions at first disease progression. The most common sites of recurrence were the peritoneum (30.0% [57/190]), lymph nodes (26.3% [50/190]), and liver (20.5% [39/190]). Similar results were observed when patients with PD were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage at diagnosis, and type of debulking surgery. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors, stage III disease, or a history of primary debulking developed a median of 2.0 new lesions at first progression; patients with homologous recombination-deficient tumors, stage IV disease, or a history of interval debulking developed a median of 1.0 new lesion., Conclusions: Many patients with AOC without lesions at first-line maintenance treatment initiation develop oligometastatic disease at first recurrence. Prospective evaluation is required to determine whether these patients have improved outcomes when local therapies are combined with continuous, systemic, targeted maintenance therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Mitchell R. Kamrava reports receiving book royalties from Springer, serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Alessa and GT Medical Technologies, and receiving consulting fees from Theragenics and Pfizer. Antonio Gonzalez-Martin reports support from GSK; grants from Roche and TESARO; consulting fees from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Novartis, Pfizer/Merck, Roche, Sutro, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar and Sotio; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche and GSK; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pharmamar and GSK. Bhavana Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Onconova, and Toray; and travel support from GSK and BioNtech. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Regeneron, Seagen, Verastem Oncology, Zai Lab, and Zentalis. Whitney Graybill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from ArsenalBio, AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Lyell Therapeutics, OnCusp Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, Stemcentrx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participation on advisory boards for Bayer, Carina Biotech, Immunogen, Miltenyi, Loxo, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Colleen McCormick reports participation on advisory boards for GSK, Merck, Immunogen and Clovis. Domenica Lorusso reports medical writing support from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; institutional funding for work in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; travel for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and is a member of the board of directors for GCIG (no compensation). Gilles Freyer reports consulting fees and payment/honoraria from GSK. David M. O'Malley reports grants from Ajinomoto, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, GOG Foundation, INC Research, InVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA International, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Yale University; has been a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Ambry, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, Regeneron, Tarveda, and VentiRx; was a member of a steering committee for Genentech/Roche and Merck; and received personal fees from Agenus, Eisai, GSK and Immunogen. Whitney York is an employee of GSK. Izabela A. Malinowska is an employee of GSK. Bradley J. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, Macrogenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech and Tesaro/GSK., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The clinical effects of risankizumab (a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the p19 subunit of IL-23) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are unknown., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab when administered as an induction and a maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 3 randomized clinical trials were conducted. The induction trial was conducted at 261 clinical centers (in 41 countries) and enrolled 977 patients from November 5, 2020, to August 4, 2022 (final follow-up on May 16, 2023). The maintenance trial was conducted at 238 clinical centers (in 37 countries) and enrolled 754 patients from August 28, 2018, to March 30, 2022 (final follow-up on April 11, 2023). Eligible patients had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis; a history of intolerance or inadequate response to 1 or more conventional therapies, advanced therapies, or both types of therapies; and no prior exposure to risankizumab., Interventions: For the induction trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of risankizumab or placebo administered intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. For the maintenance trial, patients with a clinical response (determined using the adapted Mayo score) after intravenous treatment with risankizumab were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous treatment with 180 mg or 360 mg of risankizumab or placebo (no longer receiving risankizumab) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical remission (stool frequency score ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding score of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤1 without friability) at week 12 for the induction trial and at week 52 for the maintenance trial., Results: Among the 975 patients analyzed in the induction trial (aged 42.1 [SD, 13.8] years; 586/973 [60.1%] were male; and 677 [69.6%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 12 were 132/650 (20.3%) for 1200 mg of risankizumab and 20/325 (6.2%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-18.0%], P < .001). Among the 548 patients analyzed in the maintenance trial (aged 40.9 [SD, 14.0] years; 313 [57.1%] were male; and 407 [74.3%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 52 were 72/179 (40.2%) for 180 mg of risankizumab, 70/186 (37.6%) for 360 mg of risankizumab, and 46/183 (25.1%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference for 180 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 16.3% [97.5% CI, 6.1%-26.6%], P < .001; adjusted between-group difference for 360 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 14.2% [97.5% CI, 4.0%-24.5%], P = .002). No new safety risks were detected in the treatment groups., Conclusion and Relevance: Compared with placebo, risankizumab improved clinical remission rates in an induction trial and in a maintenance trial for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Further study is needed to identify benefits beyond the 52-week follow-up., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03398148 and NCT03398135.

Objectives: The JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial showed that avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival versus best supportive care alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were progression-free following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We report findings from J-AVENUE (NCT05431777), a real-world study of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy in Japan., Methods: Medical charts of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma without disease progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, who received avelumab maintenance between February and November 2021, were reviewed. Patients were followed until June 2022. The primary endpoint was patient characteristics; secondary endpoints included time to treatment failure and progression-free survival., Results: In 79 patients analyzed, median age was 72 years (range, 44-86). Primary tumor site was upper tract in 45.6% and bladder in 54.4%. The most common first-line chemotherapy regimen was cisplatin + gemcitabine (63.3%). Median number of chemotherapy cycles received was four. Best response to chemotherapy was complete response in 10.1%, partial response in 58.2%, and stable disease in 31.6%. Median treatment-free interval before avelumab was 4.9 weeks. With avelumab first-line maintenance therapy, the disease control rate was 58.2%, median time to treatment failure was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.4), and median progression-free survival was 6.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-9.7)., Conclusions: Findings from J-AVENUE show the effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Japan in clinical practice, with similar progression-free survival to JAVELIN Bladder 100 and previous real-world studies, supporting its use as a standard of care., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Urology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Urological Association.)

Background: The prospective phase III multi-centre L-MOCA trial (NCT03534453) has demonstrated the encouraging efficacy and manageable safety profile of olaparib maintenance therapy in the Asian (mainly Chinese) patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC). In this study, we report the preplanned exploratory biomarker analysis of the L-MOCA trial, which investigated the effects of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on olaparib efficacy., Methods: HRD status was determined using the ACTHRD assay, an enrichment-based targeted next-generation sequencing assay. PD-L1 expression was assessed by SP263 immunohistochemistry assay. PD-L1 expression positivity was defined by the PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of immune cells. Kaplan-Meier method was utilised to analyse progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: This exploratory biomarker analysis included 225 patients and tested HRD status [N = 190; positive, N = 125 (65.8%)], PD-L1 expression [N = 196; positive, N = 56 (28.6%)], and BRCA1/2 mutation status (N = 219). The HRD-positive patients displayed greater median PFS than the HRD-negative patients [17.9 months (95% CI: 14.5-22.1) versus 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.8)]. PD-L1 was predominantly expressed on immune cells. Positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with shortened median PFS in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [14.5 months (95% CI: 7.4-18.2) versus 22.2 months (95% CI: 18.3-NA)]. Conversely, positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with prolonged median PFS in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2 [20.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-NA) versus 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8)]., Conclusions: HRD remained an effective biomarker for enhanced olaparib efficacy in the Asian patients with PSROC. Positive PD-L1 expression was associated with decreased olaparib efficacy in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations but associated with improved olaparib efficacy in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2., Trial Registration: NCT03534453. Registered at May 23, 2018., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) with hypomethylating agents has yielded conflicting results., Materials and Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective matched-control analysis with the study group (5-azacitidine [AZA] group) including adults with FLT3-negative acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received post-transplant AZA maintenance off clinical trial (n = 93). A matched control group was comprised of contemporaneous AML/MDS patients who did not receive any maintenance (n = 357). Primary endpoint was disease progression., Results: The AZA and control groups had comparable patient and disease characteristics except for older age (median: 61 vs. 57 years, P = .01) and lower hematopoietic comorbidity index (median: 2 vs. 3, P = .04) in the AZA group. The 3-year cumulative incidence of progression in the AZA and control groups was 29% vs. 33% (P = .09). The protective effect of AZA on progression was limited to patients with high-risk AML/MDS (HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.8, P = .009). This led to improved progression-free survival both in high-risk AML and MDS patients with maintenance (HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.6, P = .004 and HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9, P = .04)., Conclusion: AZA maintenance was associated with a lower progression rate in patients with high-risk FLT3-negative AML or MDS, and AZA maintenance should be considered for post-alloHCT maintenance in this subset., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Oran has research with support from ASTEX for maintenance trials, other authors declare no relevant financial conflicts of interest. There was no funding for this retrospective trial to be conducted., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ustekinumab has two alternative drug maintenance intervals for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 12 weeks (Q12W). The current study aimed at evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of the two maintenance intervals in patients with IBD. A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was carried out. The relative risk (RR) was pooled for efficacy and safety outcomes between the two intervals at various follow-up time points, categorized as short term (less than 44 weeks), medium term (about 92 weeks), and long term (about 152 weeks). A total of 14 studies with 1448 patients were included. Q8W didn't result in a remarkably higher proportion of clinical remission compared to Q12W at short term (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16), medium term (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.20), and long term (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.26). Similarly, no substantial differences exist at short term in clinical response (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.17), endoscopic remission (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.26-3.69), and histologic improvement (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.93-1.36) between the two intervals. For safety outcomes, the RR values for any adverse events in the short, medium, and long term were 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.08-1.20), and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.07-1.17) for Q8W versus Q12W. Finally, we conclude that ustekinumab maintenance therapy administered every 8 and 12 weeks showed similar effectiveness in achieving efficacy outcomes in IBD patients, and most safety outcomes were significantly better for Q12W during the maintenance phase., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65)., Conclusions: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Nusinersen is approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. The most common approved dosing regimen is four intrathecal loading doses of nusinersen 12 mg; the first three are administered at 14-day intervals followed by a fourth dose 30 days later, and then 12-mg maintenance doses are administered every 4 months thereafter. Interruption of nusinersen treatment in the maintenance dosing phase might occur for a number of clinical reasons., Objective: The objective of this report is to describe dosing regimens that allow for the most rapid restoration of steady-state concentrations of nusinersen in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) following a treatment interruption during maintenance dosing., Methods: Population pharmacokinetic models using integrated pharmacokinetic data from ten nusinersen clinical trials that included a broad range of participants with spinal muscular atrophy treated with intrathecal nusinersen were used to investigate different durations of treatment interruptions during maintenance treatment. Potential dosing regimens for re-initiation of nusinersen were evaluated, with the goal of achieving the quickest restoration of steady-state nusinersen CSF concentrations without exceeding maximal CSF exposures observed during the initial loading period., Results: Our pharmacokinetic modeling indicates the following regimen will lead to optimal restoration of nusinersen CSF levels after treatment interruption: two doses of nusinersen should be administered at 14-day intervals following treatment interruptions of ≥ 8 to < 16 months since the last dose, and three doses of nusinersen at 14-day intervals for treatment interruptions of ≥ 16 to < 40 months since the last maintenance dose, with subsequent maintenance dosing every 4 months in both instances. After treatment interruptions of ≥ 40 months, the full loading regimen will rapidly restore nusinersen CSF levels., Conclusions: Prolonged treatment interruptions lead to suboptimal CSF levels of nusinersen. The optimal regimen to restore nusinersen CSF levels depends on the interval since the last maintenance dose was administered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Maintenance ± consolidation or continuous therapy is considered a standard of care for both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, long-term benefits of such therapy have not yet been clarified in the context of clinical practice., Purpose: To clarify the efficacy of maintenance/continuous approach, we retrospectively analyzed the cohort data of newly diagnosed MM patients by propensity-score matching based on age, gender, revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage, and implementation of transplantation to reduce the bias due to confounding variables., Findings: Among 720 patients, 161 were identified for each of the maintenance and no maintenance groups. Maintenance/continuous therapy employed immunomodulatory drugs (n = 83), proteasome inhibitors (n = 48), combination of both (n = 29), or dexamethasone alone (n = 1). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged in the maintenance group compared with the no maintenance group (median 37.7 and 21.9 months, p = 0.0002, respectively). Prolongation of PFS was observed in both transplanted and non-transplanted patients (p = 0.017 and p = 0.0008, respectively), with standard risk (p < 0.00001), R-ISS stage I (p = 0.037) and stage II (p = 0.00094), and those without obtaining complete response (p = 0.0018). There was no significant benefit in overall survival (OS), but it tended to be better in the maintenance group in non-transplanted patients. Regarding the treatment pattern, the substitution or addition of drugs different from the induction therapy and the combination with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors appeared to be more beneficial for PFS but not OS., Conclusion: These results support the benefit of current maintenance/continuous approach in routine clinical practice in the management of MM., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common primary liver cancer with a poor prognosis. Recently, an immunotherapy strategy represented by programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors has been applied to the systemic treatment of advanced iCCA. However, immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy as first-line maintenance therapy was rarely reported. Our report presented an advanced iCCA patient who had a dramatic response to the PD-1 inhibitor sintilimab combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin as the first-line therapy and sintilimab combined with capecitabine as maintenance therapy, yielding an ongoing progression-free survival of 16 months., Competing Interests: Authors DZ and MH are employed by 3D Medicines Inc. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wang, Zeng, Li, Zhang, Yuan, Huang, Yang and Zhou.)

Objectives : To ascertain the role of antibiotics in induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) Methods : We searched electronic databases for keywords ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease and antibiotics or antimicrobials. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing antibiotics with control/placebo for clinical response, need for second line therapy, colectomy, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis to clarify the mode of administration, number of antibiotics or the setting of use (acute severe UC or active non-severe UC) were also performed. Results : Thirteen trials with 785 patients were included. The pooled odds ratio of achieving clinical response with antibiotics was 1.74 (95% CI, 1.17-2.58). No differences were noted in relapse rates, need for second line therapy, colectomy or, adverse effects with the use of antibiotics. Subgroup analysis showed no differences with use of single or combination of antibiotics. Analysis of trials only in the setting of acute severe colitis did not demonstrate any benefit. Conclusion : The use of oral antibiotics in the setting of non-severe active UC could have some benefit in clinical response. The use of antibiotics is not of benefit in acute severe colitis, but oral antibiotics need to be evaluated in adult patients.

Treatment-related morbidity drives research to identify targetable lesions in children with cancer. Neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) alterations occur in ~1% of pediatric solid tumors. Early phase pediatric trials involving the NTRK inhibitor treatment for progressive NTRK-mutated cancers show promising results. The authors describe the adjuvant maintenance larotrectinib treatment after definitive surgical resection in 2 toddlers with NTRK fusion-positive malignancies (ETV6-NTRK3 fusion-positive undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma of the kidney and NACC2-NTRK2 fusion-positive anaplastic astrocytoma). Both are alive, in remission, developing normally and tolerating larotrectinib 15 months later, thus extending the NTRK inhibitor therapeutic spectrum by describing the adjuvant maintenance larotrectinib treatment in children with NTRK fusion-positive cancers associated with high recurrences., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 2021 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) report recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol irrespective of severity, and maintenance and reliever treatment (MART) from GINA Step 3 as part of Treatment Track 1, partly based on the SYGMA studies. We investigated how current clinical practice in Australia, Canada, China and the Philippines relates to latest GINA recommendations., Methods: Patients and physicians were recruited from online panels between July and August 2020 and invited to complete an online survey., Inclusion Criteria: age ≥18 years, current/past physician diagnosis of asthma (patients); primary care (Canada also included respirologists/respiratory therapists), treating ≥4 patients with asthma per month, ≥3 years in clinical practice (physicians)., Results: Overall, 1216/70,183 patients and 803/8376 physicians replied and were eligible for inclusion. Only 8-15% of patients were using MART; 66-81% used regular maintenance therapy with/without an as-needed reliever. Across the four countries, physicians classified 48-63% of their patients as mild (GINA Steps 1-2) and 28-36% as moderate (GINA Steps 3-4). Generally, physicians rated symptom control over exacerbation reduction as their main treatment goal; patients also ranked symptom relief as very important. Approximately 9-29% of patients and 24-45% of physicians were unaware of MART, and among those who prescribed MART, 80-95% prescribed an additional (non-ICS) as-needed reliever., Interpretation: Most physicians prioritized managing asthma symptoms over exacerbations. A lack of awareness and understanding of MART dosing exists among physicians. Practical strategies are required to implement GINA recommendations effectively in real-world clinical practice and to identify appropriate patients for MART., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clozapine is an effective drug for the management of schizophrenia that has not responded to other agents, but some patients experience insufficient or adverse effects and discontinue treatment., Objective: We investigated a potential association between clozapine serum concentrations and switching to other antipsychotics in a large real-world patient population from a therapeutic drug monitoring service., Methods: Absolute and dose-adjusted serum concentrations (concentration-to-dose ratios [C/D ratios]) of clozapine during dosing between 100 and 1000 mg/day were measured in 1979 Norwegian patients during the period 2005-2019. These variables were compared in patients switching to other antipsychotic drugs versus maintaining clozapine treatment using linear mixed models. Smoking habits were known for 49% of the patients. To prevent potential nonadherence affecting clozapine switching, only patients with serum concentrations above 50% of the lower reference range were included., Results: In total, 190 patients (9.6%) switched from clozapine to another antipsychotic drug during the study period, whereas the remaining patients were not detected as switchers and were interpreted as maintaining treatment. Patients switching treatment had 23.5% lower absolute concentrations (954 vs. 1245 nmol/L; p < 0.001) and 15.7% lower daily doses (305 vs. 362 mg/day; p < 0.001) of clozapine than did nonswitchers, making the clozapine C/D ratio 9.7% lower in switchers than in nonswitchers after correcting for smoking habits (2.80 vs. 3.10 nmol/L/mg/day; p = 0.032)., Conclusions: The present study suggests that decreased absolute and dose-adjusted serum concentrations of clozapine were associated with clozapine discontinuation. The significantly reduced clozapine concentrations regardless of prescribed dose in switchers versus nonswitchers may indicate a pharmacokinetic mechanism underlying the risk of clozapine discontinuation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Lung function impairment in COPD is known to be related to reductions of left heart size, while short-term interventional trials with bronchodilators showed positive effects on cardiac parameters. We investigated whether COPD maintenance therapy has analogous long-term effects., Methods: Pooled data of GOLD grade 1-4 patients from visits 1 and 3 (1.5 y apart) of the COSYCONET cohort were used. Medication was categorized as use of ICS, LABA + ICS, LABA + LAMA and triple therapy (LABA + LAMA + ICS), contrasting "always" versus "never". Echocardiographic parameters comprised left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic diameter (LVEDD, LVESD), ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial diameter (LA). Associations were identified by multiple regression analysis, as well as propensity score analysis., Results: Overall, 846 patients (mean age 64.5 y; 41% female) were included, 53% using ICS at both visits, 51% LABA + ICS, 56% LABA + LAMA, 40% LABA + LAMA + ICS (triple) therapy. Conversely, 30%, 32%, 28% and 42% had no ICS, LABA + ICS, LABA + LAMA or triple therapy, respectively, at both visits. Among echocardiographic measures, only LA showed statistically significant associations (increases) with medication, whereby significant effects were linked to ICS, LABA + ICS and LABA + LAMA (p < 0.05 each, "always" versus "never") and propensity score analyses underlined the role of LABA + LAMA., Conclusions: In this observational study, COPD maintenance therapy, especially LABA + LAMA, was linked to left atrial size, consistent with the results of short-term interventional trials. These findings suggest that maintenance medication for COPD does not only improve lung function and patient reported outcomes but may also have an impact on the cardiovascular system., Trial Registration: NCT01245933., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

PERJETA (pertuzumab), administered with Herceptin (trastuzumab), is used in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. Pertuzumab is currently approved with an initial loading dose of 840 mg, followed by a 420-mg maintenance dose intravenously every 3 weeks. A reloading dose is required if there is a ≥6-week delay in treatment. In response to the potential treatment disruption due to COVID-19, the impact of dose delays and alternative dosing regimens on intravenous pertuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer treatment is presented. Simulations were conducted by using the validated population pharmacokinetic model for pertuzumab, and included (1) 4-, 6-, and 9-week dose delays of the 840 mg/420 mg every 3 weeks dosing regimen and (2) 840 mg/420 mg every 4 weeks and 840 mg every 6 weeks alternative dosing regimens. Simulations were compared with the currently approved pertuzumab dosing regimen. The simulations in 1000 virtual patients showed that a dose reload (840 mg) is required following a dose delay of ≥6 weeks to maintain comparable C trough (lowest concentration before the next dose is given) levels to clinical trials. The 840 mg/420 mg every 4 weeks and 840 mg every 6 weeks alternative dosing regimens decrease median steady-state C trough by ≈40% compared with the approved regimen, and <90% of patients will be above the target C trough . Thus, the alternative 840 mg/420 mg every 4 weeks and 840 mg every 6 weeks pertuzumab dosing regimens are not recommended. Flexibility for intravenous PERJETA-based regimens is available with an alternative route of pertuzumab administration (subcutaneous vs intravenous)., (© 2021 F. Hofmmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Objective: The first Poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, was approved by Taiwan Food and Drug Administration in June 2018, which was available under a compassionate use program since 2015. This study aims to report the early experience of the effectiveness and adverse effects of olaparib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients in Taiwan., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian and peritoneal cancer who received olaparib as maintenance therapy or salvage therapy between December, 2015 and October, 2019. We observed response rates in the salvage therapy group, and progression-free interval (PFI) in both groups., Results: A total of 20 patients (10 in maintenance and 10 in salvage groups) were enrolled. BRCA status was checked in 18 patients by blood or tumor samples, and 83.3% were mutated (n = 15), including pathological/probable pathological variants in BRCA1 (n = 11), BRCA2 (n = 2), or both BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 2). In the salvage group, there were two partial responses and two stable diseases, adding up to a clinical benefit rate at 40%. In the maintenance group, median PFI was 20.1 months (range, 1.0-33.1). The median PFI of those with chemotherapy-free interval >12 months was not reached, which was significantly better than those ≤12 months, with median PFI 3.1 months (p = 0.022). The most common grade 3/4 adverse effects in patient with olaparib as monotherapy were neutropenia (30.8%) and fatigue (7.7%). Anemia of grade 1/2 was noted in 76.9%., Conclusion: This real-world experience of olaparib for recurrent ovarian cancer in Taiwan showed efficacy and safety similar to the results of previous clinical trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interest relevant to this article., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common malignant tumor of the hematopoietic system, which seriously threatens the lives of patients. Most AML patients have acute onset, severe condition, and poor prognosis. The present study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy combined with different doses of interleukin-2 (IL-2) maintenance treatments in AML by Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA)., Methods: From its inception until October 2021, we will search PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Embase, and other databases to comprehensively collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chemotherapy combined with different doses of IL-2 maintenance therapies for AML. Two independent researchers will complete the literature screening and data extraction according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then independently conduct a bias risk assessment of all the evidence. Bayesian NMA was used to evaluate all the evidence comprehensively. Use STATA16.0 and WinBUGS1.4.3 software to process and analyze all data, and classify the quality of evidence in NMA according to grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation ., Results: The study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy combined with different doses of IL-2 maintenance therapies for AML., Conclusion: The study will provide a basis for the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy combined with different doses of IL-2 maintenance therapies for AML. We hope that this study can provide meaningful support for clinicians and patients., Protocol Registration Number: INPLASY202140106., Ethical Approval: Since the study is based on published or registered RCTs, ethical approval and patient informed consent are abandoned., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite advances in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard induction regimen., Patients and Methods: In this single center retrospective study, we assessed outcomes of 99 consecutive adult AML patients treated with a risk-adapted strategy with a median follow-up of 35.5 months., Results: We identified 24 (24 %), 55 (56 %) and 20 (20 %) patients classified as favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse- risk group respectively, according to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 classification. Patients either received idarubicin and cytarabine induction chemotherapy with or without FLT3 inhibitors or hypomethylating agents based on age and comorbidity. The complete response (CR) rate was 76 % (82 % and 61 % in patients aged < 60 and ≥ 60, respectively). For the whole cohort, the 3-year overall survival (OS) was 53 %, being 62 % and 30 % in patients aged < 60 and ≥ 60, respectively. The 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) was 54 %, with 56 % and 45 % in patients aged < 60 and ≥ 60, respectively. The 3-year LFS were 58 %, 62 % and 25 % for patients within ELN favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk groups respectively. Twenty-seven (36 %) out of 75 patients with intermediate- and adverse-risk disease underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in first CR with 92 % of them receiving post-transplant maintenance consisting of azacitidine in 19 (76 %) patients or sorafenib in 6 (24 %) patients. Of these patients younger than 60 years, the 3-year OS and LFS were 85 % and 69 %, respectively., Conclusion: These results indicate an improved OS for AML patients especially in intermediate-risk category who were treated with a total therapy consisting of induction chemotherapy followed by allo-HCT and post-transplant maintenance., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The real impact of bevacizumab maintenance as single agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. SAKK-41/06 and PRODIGE-9 failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority and superiority of bevacizumab versus no maintenance, respectively, while AIO-KRK-0207 showed the non-inferiority of maintenance bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidines for time to strategy failure., Methods: Bibliography electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for English published clinical trials prospectively randomizing mCRC patients to receive bevacizumab maintenance or not after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Individual patients' data (IPD) were provided by investigators for all included trials. Primary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both from the start of induction and maintenance. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed., Results: Three phase III studies - PRODIGE-9, AIO-KRK-0207 and SAKK-41/06 - were included. Considering the different timing of randomization, IPD of patients not progressed during induction and starting maintenance phase entered the analysis. 909 patients were included, 457 (50%) received bevacizumab maintenance. Median PFS from induction start was 9.6 and 8.9 months in bevacizumab group versus no maintenance group, respectively (HR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.68-0.89; p < 0.0001). Subgroups analysis for PFS showed a significant interaction according for RAS status (p = 0.048), with a maintenance benefit limited to RAS wild-type patients. No difference in terms of OS was observed., Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant PFS improvement for bevacizumab maintenance, the absolute benefit appears limited. Subgroup analysis shows a differential effect of bevacizumab maintenance in favor of RAS wild-type patients. Considering these results, maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine with or without bevacizumab remains the first option. Single agent bevacizumab maintenance can be considered in selected cases, such as cumulative toxicity or patient's refusal, in particular for RAS wild-type patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: No long-term maintenance therapy has been tested in patients with seborrheic dermatitis (SD)., Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy and tolerance of tacrolimus 0.1% ointment versus ciclopiroxolamine 1% cream as maintenance therapy for severe SD., Methods: This double-blind randomized controlled study was conducted from 2014 to 2017 in 5 Dermatology Departments and 15 dermatology practices in France. Consecutive patients with severe and chronic facial SD were included. Patients were initially treated with desonide 0.05% cream twice daily for 7 days. Patients cleared after this open phase were randomized to receive tacrolimus 0.1% or ciclopiroxolamine 1% cream 2 times a week 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease-free-duration, defined as the time from randomization to first relapse., Results: One hundred fourteen patients were randomized (tacrolimus, n = 57; ciclopiroxolamine, n = 57). Twelve patients relapsed in the tacrolimus group after a median delay of 91.5 days (range 15-195 days) versus 23 patients in the ciclopiroxolamine group (median delay, 27 days [range 13-201 days]). Comparison of disease-free duration curves showed that patients in the tacrolimus group had a longer duration of complete remission than those in the ciclopiroxolamine group (P = .018), corresponding to a hazard ratio of relapse of 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.22-0.89; P = .022)., Limitations: The theoretical sample size was not reached., Conclusion: Tacrolimus 0.1% is more effective than ciclopiroxolamine 1% as maintenance therapy for patients with facial SD., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Aim: Combining therapy with a thiopurine is favored when commencing infliximab in Crohn's disease; however, the optimal 6-thioguanine nucleotide (TGN) level and how long to continue thiopurines after induction are uncertain. We aimed to compare outcomes after induction and during maintenance in combination therapy versus infliximab monotherapy in Crohn's and to examine whether TGN levels were associated with outcomes., Methods: Crohn's patients induced with infliximab with or without concomitant thiopurines were retrospectively identified. Response to induction and clinical outcomes in subsequent 6-month maintenance semesters were analyzed. A TGN level ≥235 pmol/8 × 10 8 red blood cells was considered therapeutic., Results: In 89 patients, response to induction was higher in combination therapy than monotherapy (74 vs 47%, P = 0.04). This benefit was only seen in patients with a therapeutic TGN (odds ratio 3.72, confidence interval 1.07-13.0, P = 0.04). Combination therapy during induction yielded a three times longer time to subsequent need for treatment escalation or treatment failure compared with monotherapy (29 vs 9 months, P = 0.01), with both therapeutic and subtherapeutic TGNs independent predictors on multivariate analysis. Among 370 semesters, there was no difference in outcomes between combination therapy and monotherapy (P = 0.42), nor when combination semesters were stratified by therapeutic versus subtherapeutic TGN (P = 0.56). In semester 1 only, a significantly higher remission rate was observed with therapeutic compared with subtherapeutic TGN (76% vs 33%, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Combination therapy dosed with an optimized thiopurine was superior to infliximab monotherapy for induction of response, durability of response, and clinical outcomes in the first 6 months following induction. Thereafter, combination therapy yielded no clinical advantage, supporting consideration of thiopurine withdrawal on a case-by-case basis., (© 2020 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: A substantial number of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) do not achieve complete remission after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). We performed this retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with S-1/capecitabine as the oral maintenance therapy for these patients., Methods: Thirty-nine ESCC patients with residual disease after dCRT were included. Patients were treated with apatinib combined with S-1 /capecitabine after dCRT. Efficacy, toxicity, and survival were analyzed., Results: Of the 39 patients, 5 (12.8%) achieved a partial response and 29 (74.4%) achieved stable disease, yielding a disease control rate of 87.2%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 27.5 (95%CI: 14.9 - 40.1) and 38.1 (95%CI: 31.3 - 44.8) months. Most frequent adverse events were of grade 1 to 2. Multivariate analysis revealed the occurrence of any adverse events (HR = 0.274, 95%[CI] = 0.119 - 0.630) correlated to better PFS and occurrence of proteinuria (HR = 0.108, 95%[CI] = 0.025 - 0.456) predicted better OS., Conclusion: The oral combination therapy consisting of apatinib and S-1/capecitabine showed a tolerable toxicity profile and achieved satisfactory disease control in ESCC patients with residual disease after dCRT.

Rationale: The incidence of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is high. Most nonsmall cell lung cancers have undergone multiple metastases at the time of initial diagnosis, and the 5 year survival rate is low. At present, comprehensive treatments, including systemic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, antiangiogenic therapy, and immunotherapy, prolong the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC. Herein, we report a case of NSCLC with long-term survival., Patient Concerns: A 61-year-old woman complained of dry cough and shortness of breath and visited our hospital in July 2011. Imaging examination revealed a left upper lung mass with multiple metastases to the liver, adrenal gland, and bone., Diagnoses: Stage IVB (cT2aN3M1c) lung adenocarcinoma was diagnosed, with multiple metastases of the lymph nodes, liver, adrenal gland, and bone., Interventions and Outcomes: The patient received systemic chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor-targeted therapy, and has survived for more than 9 years., Lessons: The patient benefited from maintenance chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment and achieved long-term survival., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

A majority of children and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are cured with contemporary multiagent chemotherapy regimens. The high rate of survival is largely the result of 70 years of randomized clinical trials performed by international cooperative groups. Contemporary ALL therapy usually consists of cycles of multiagent chemotherapy administered over 2 to 3 years that includes central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis, primarily consisting of CNS-penetrating systemic agents and intrathecal therapy. Although the treatment backbones vary among cooperative groups, the same agents are used, and the outcomes are comparable. ALL therapy typically begins with 5 to 9 months of more-intensive chemotherapy followed by a prolonged low-intensity maintenance phase. Historically, a few cooperative groups treated boys with 1 more year of maintenance therapy than girls; however, most groups treated boys and girls with equal therapy lengths. This practice arose because of inferior survival in boys with older less-intensive regimens. The extra year of therapy added significant burden to patients and families and involved short- and long-term risks that were potentially life threatening and debilitating. The Children's Oncology Group recently changed its approach as part of its current generation of trials in B-cell ALL and now treats boys and girls with the same duration of therapy. We discuss the rationale behind this change, review the data and differences in practice across cooperative groups, and provide our perspective regarding the length of maintenance therapy., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: A variety of dual-combination maintenance inhalers are used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Understanding patient preferences for treatment attributes may help select an optimal treatment from the patient perspective., Methods: Patient preferences for maintenance inhaler device and medication attributes were elicited through a discrete choice experiment and used in benefit-risk assessments to calculate predicted choice probabilities (PrCPs) for 14 dual-combination maintenance inhalers in four treatment classes: lower- and higher-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) inhalers for asthma, and ICS/LABA and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA inhalers for COPD., Results: For all treatment classes, reduced exacerbations and faster onset of action were the most important attributes. For all classes, patients were willing to tolerate an extra yearly exacerbation to decrease the medication's onset of action from 30 to 5 min. For patients with asthma using lower-dose ICS/LABA (n = 497), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (80 μg/4.5 μg) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) had the highest PrCP (28.4%), and for those using a higher-dose ICS/LABA (n = 285), PrCPs were highest for mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (200 μg/5 μg) pMDI (27.0%) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 μg/4.5 μg) pMDI (26.9%). For patients with COPD using an ICS/LABA (n = 574), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 μg/4.5 μg) pMDI had the highest PrCP (56.6%), and for those using a LAMA/LABA inhaler (n = 217), tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5 μg/2.5 μg) soft mist inhaler had the highest PrCP (42.3%)., Conclusions: Patient preference data for maintenance inhaler attributes can be used to identify a preference order of inhalers in different treatment classes., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Maintenance chemotherapy was studied in first line setting for advanced stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). There has not been any data on the role of continuation maintenance chemotherapy in second line setting. A retrospective cohort study that included 226 patients with advanced stage NSCLC that received second line gemcitabine ± platinum was conducted. Patients who had continuation maintenance gemcitabine were compared with those who went on drug holiday. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), counted from the end of induction therapy. The median PFS was significantly longer for patients who continued with maintenance gemcitabine when compared with those on drug holiday (5.6 vs 1.7 months, HR 0.392, p-value < 0.001). The overall survival was also significantly longer (21.4 vs 15.8 months, HR 0.508, p-value 0.047). There was no increase in incidence of adverse events for patients who underwent maintenance gemcitabine. Continuation maintenance therapy with gemcitabine in second line setting is a potentially feasible and safe option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS)., Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug with immunomodulatory effects used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and scleroderma. The antiviral effects of HCQ have raised attention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, although safety is controversial. We examined linkages of national transplant registry data with pharmaceutical claims and Medicare billing claims to study HCQ use among Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients with SLE or scleroderma (2008-2017; N = 1820). We compared three groups based on immunosuppression regimen 7 months-to-1 year post transplant: (a) tacrolimus (Tac) + mycophenolic acid (MPA) + prednisone (Pred) (referent group, 77.7%); (b) Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ (16.5%); or (c) other immunosuppression + HCQ (5.7%). Compared to the referent group, recipients treated with other immunosuppression + HCQ had a 2-fold increased risk of abnormal ECG or QT prolongation (18.9% vs. 10.7%; aHR, 1.12 1.96 3.42 , p = .02) and ventricular arrhythmias (15.2% vs. 11.4%; aHR, 1.00 1.81 3.29 , p = .05) in the >1-to-3 years post-transplant. Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ was associated with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (13.5% vs. 11.4%; aHR, 1.02 1.54 2.31 , p = .04) and pancytopenia (35.9% vs. 31.4%; aHR, 1.03 1.31 1.68 , p = .03) compared to triple immunosuppression without HCQ. However, HCQ-containing regimens were not associated with an increased risk of death or graft failure. HCQ may be used safely in selected kidney transplant recipients in addition to their maintenance immunosuppression, although attention to arrhythmias is warranted., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy., Methods: The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained., Results: PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance., Conclusions: This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Secord reports grants from AbbVie, grants from Amgen, grants from Astellas Pharma Inc., grants from Astex Pharma Inc., grants and personal fees from Aztra Zeneca, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from Clovis, grants and personal fees from Eisai, grants from Endocyte, grants from Exelixis, grants from Immutep, grants from Incyte, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants from PharmaMar, grants and personal fees from Roche/Genetech, grants from Seattle Genetics, grants and personal fees from Tesaro/GSK, grants from VBL therapeutics, grants from National Cancer Trial Network, personal fees from Aravive, personal fees from Cordgenics, personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, personal fees from Mersana, personal fees from Myriad, personal fees from Oncoquest. Dr. Myers reports personal fees from Merck, Inc., personal fees from AbbVie, Inc., personal fees from Bayer, Inc. Dr. Havrilesky reports grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Tesaro. Dr. Moss receives funding from the NIH (K12HD043446). The remainder of the authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have shown have activity in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Previous studies documented activity in patients with germline (gBRCA) and tumor (tBRCA) BRCA mutations (BRCAm) for treatment in lieu of chemotherapy as well as in recurrent ovarian cancer as maintenance therapy. The recent data from four randomized phase 3 trials have established an important role for frontline PARPi maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. While SOLO-1 only included BRCAm patients, PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 enrolled broader patient populations. The magnitude of benefit of PARPi in these studies was consistently greatest in the BRCAm patients (germline or tumor). PARPi treatment also improved PFS in the HRD cohort but to a lesser degree than in patients with BRCAm. In secondary analyses, the overall impact of PARPi treatment in HR proficient patients, which comprise about 50% of ovarian cancers, was more limited than in the other subgroups. Data for overall survival, also a secondary endpoint, is currently immature for these four trials. Fatigue, hematologic, and GI toxicities are the most commonly noted adverse events with PARPi therapy. The recent FDA approvals of PARPi in the maintenance setting will enable clinicians to incorporate these into frontline armamentarium of ovarian cancer treatment., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The randomized, controlled MAINRITSAN2 trial was designed to compare the capacity of an individually tailored therapy [randomization day 0 (D0)], with reinfusion only when CD19+ lymphocytes or ANCA had reappeared, or if the latter's titre rose markedly, with that of five fixed-schedule 500-mg rituximab infusions [D0 + D14, then months (M) 6, 12 and 18] to maintain ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) remissions. Relapse rates did not differ at M28. This ancillary study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of omitting the D14 rituximab infusion on AAV relapse rates at M12., Methods: MAINRITSAN2 trial data were subjected to post-hoc analyses of M3, M6, M9 and M12 relapse-free survival rates in each arm as primary end points. Exploratory subgroup analyses were run according to CYC or rituximab induction and newly diagnosed or relapsing AAV., Results: At M3, M6, M9 and M12, respectively, among the 161 patients included, 79/80 (98.8%), 76/80 (95%), 74/80 (92.5%) and 73/80 (91.3%) from D0, and 80/81 (98.8%), 78/81 (96.3%), 76/81 (93.8%) and 76/81 (93.8%) from D0+D14 groups were alive and relapse-free. No between-group differences were observed. Results were not affected by CYC or rituximab induction, or newly diagnosed or relapsing AAV., Conclusions: We were not able to detect a difference between the relapse-free survival rates for up to M12 for the D0 and D0+D14 rituximab-infusion groups, which could suggest that omitting the D14 rituximab remission-maintenance dose did not modify the short-term relapse-free rate. Nevertheless, results at M12 may also have been influenced by the rituximab-infusion strategies for both groups., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Treatment of vasculitides associated with anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibodies (ANCA) (AAVs) has evolved dramatically in recent years, particularly since the demonstration of rituximab efficacy as remission induction and maintenance therapy for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. In 2013, the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG) published recommendations for its use by clinicians. Since then, new data have made it possible to better specify and codify prescription of rituximab to treat AAVs. Herein, the FVSG Recommendations Committee, an expert panel comprised of physicians with extensive experience in the treatment and management of vasculitides, presents its consensus guidelines based on literature analysis, the results of prospective therapeutic trials and personal experience., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Personalized medicine in treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still in its infancy, albeit PDAC-related deaths are projected to rise over the next decade. Only recently, maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib showed improved progression-free survival in germline BRCA1/2 -mutated PDAC patients after platinum-based induction for the first time. Transferability of such a concept to other DNA damage response (DDR) genes remains unclear. Here, we conducted a placebo-controlled, three-armed preclinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of multi-DDR interference (mDDRi) as maintenance therapy vs. continuous FOLFIRINOX treatment, implemented with orthotopically transplanted ATM-deficient PDAC cell lines. Kaplan-Meier analysis, cross-sectional imaging, histology, and in vitro analysis served as analytical readouts. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the mDDRi maintenance arm compared to the maintained FOLFIRINOX treatment. This survival benefit was mirrored in the highest DNA-damage load, accompanied by superior disease control and reduced metastatic burden. In vitro analysis suggests FOLFIRINOX-driven selection of invasive subclones, erased by subsequent mDDRi treatment. Collectively, this preclinical trial substantiates mDDRi in a maintenance setting as a novel therapeutic option and extends the concept to non-germline BRCA1/2 -mutant PDAC.

Background: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA)., Methods: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 μg or twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses., Results: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates., Conclusions: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Overall prognosis of advanced sarcoma remains poor, optimization of systemic treatment is urgently needed in this setting. Materials and methods: We systematically reviewed fully published English-speaking literature about maintenance therapy and drug holiday in sarcoma patients management. Results: We found that switch maintenance therapy with cyclophosphamide/vinorelbine improves the outcome of localized high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. There is no other maintenance therapy recommended in sarcoma patients. After classical chemotherapy, maintenance therapy with immune-stimulating agents for localized osteosarcoma, bevacizumab for advanced angiosarcoma or pediatric advanced sarcoma, or mTOR inhibitors for metastatic sarcoma does not improve the outcome. Drug holiday has been assessed for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with imatinib as the first-line therapy or for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma treated with trabectedin. Drug holiday has been found to lead to rapid disease progression and should be avoided. Conclusions: Data about both maintenance and drug holiday are spare in sarcoma management.

Background: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date., Objectives: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens., Search Methods: We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence., Main Results: The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review., Objectives: To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model., Main Results: The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50)., Authors' Conclusions: For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aim: This study was conducted to investigate the effects of VKORC1 , CYP2C9 , CYP4F2 and  EPHX1 and nongenetic factors on warfarin maintenance dose in a very elderly, frail Han-Chinese population. Materials & methods:  16 variants of VKORC1 , CYP2C9 , CYP4F2 and EPHX1 were genotyped. Univariate analysis and multivariable regression model were performed for the associations of gene variants and warfarin maintenance dose. Results & conclusion: EPHX1 rs2260863 nonvariant CC homozygotes required significantly lower daily warfarin dose than GC heterozygotes. In the multivariable model, VKORC1 rs9923231, CYP2C9 rs1057910, EPHX1 rs2260863, CYP4F2 rs2189784 and body surface area altogether explained 26.9% of dosing variability. This study revealed the main impact of genetic factors on warfarin response in this special population.

Over the last 2 decades, the standard fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy backbone for metastatic colorectal cancer has been complemented by the addition of novel biological agents, achieving impressive increases in 5-year survival rates. Nonetheless, these new combinations have also entailed increases in toxicity, leading to evaluation of de-escalated chemotherapy regimens and "drug holiday" periods in attempts to reduce side effects and optimise quality of life without impairing efficacy. Here, we review the current and emerging evidence for maintenance schedules with chemotherapy and targeted agents, versus continuous treatment after induction treatment, in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

The overall objective of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related digestive disease in adults and children. IgG4-related digestive disease can be diagnosed only with a comprehensive work-up that includes histology, organ morphology at imaging, serology, search for other organ involvement, and response to glucocorticoid treatment. Indications for treatment are symptomatic patients with obstructive jaundice, abdominal pain, posterior pancreatic pain, and involvement of extra-pancreatic digestive organs, including IgG4-related cholangitis. Treatment with glucocorticoids should be weight-based and initiated at a dose of 0.6-0.8 mg/kg body weight/day orally (typical starting dose 30-40 mg/day prednisone equivalent) for 1 month to induce remission and then be tapered within two additional months. Response to initial treatment should be assessed at week 2-4 with clinical, biochemical and morphological markers. Maintenance treatment with glucocorticoids should be considered in multi-organ disease or history of relapse. If there is no change in disease activity and burden within 3 months, the diagnosis should be reconsidered. If the disease relapsed during the 3 months of treatment, immunosuppressive drugs should be added.

Background: The best strategy for maintaining clinical remission in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has not been defined. C-OPTIMISE compared dose continuation, reduction and withdrawal of the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor certolizumab pegol (CZP) following achievement of sustained remission in patients with early axSpA., Methods: C-OPTIMISE was a two-part, multicentre phase 3b study in adults with early active axSpA (radiographic or non-radiographic). During the 48-week open-label induction period, patients received CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W). At Week 48, patients in sustained remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3 at Weeks 32/36 and 48) were randomised to double-blind CZP 200 mg Q2W (full maintenance dose), CZP 200 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W; reduced maintenance dose) or placebo (withdrawal) for a further 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was remaining flare-free (flare: ASDAS ≥2.1 at two consecutive visits or ASDAS >3.5 at any time point) during the double-blind period., Results: At Week 48, 43.9% (323/736) patients achieved sustained remission, of whom 313 were randomised to CZP full maintenance dose, CZP reduced maintenance dose or placebo. During Weeks 48 to 96, 83.7% (87/104), 79.0% (83/105) and 20.2% (21/104) of patients receiving the full maintenance dose, reduced maintenance dose or placebo, respectively, were flare-free (p<0.001 vs placebo in both CZP groups). Responses in radiographic and non-radiographic axSpA patients were comparable., Conclusions: Patients with early axSpA who achieve sustained remission at 48 weeks can reduce their CZP maintenance dose; however, treatment should not be completely discontinued due to the high risk of flare following CZP withdrawal., Trial Registration Number: NCT02505542, ClinicalTrials.gov., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RL: Consulting fees and/or research grants from AbbVie, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Centocor, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering and UCB Pharma. DvDH: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma; director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. MD: Consultancy/speaker fees/research grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. XB: Consultancy/speaker fees/research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene. FVdB: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; speakers bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. KG: Consulting fees, research grants and speaker fees from AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. OD, NdP, LB, BH: Employees of UCB Pharma. KT: Independent statistician contracted to UCB Pharma. LSG: Grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis and UCB Pharma; consulting fees from Galapagos, Eli Lilly and Janssen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)