scholarly journals The Use of Ibrutinib in Italian CLL Patients Treated in a Real-World Setting (EVIDENCE): A Preliminary Report

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4684-4684
Author(s):  
Stefano Molica ◽  
Potito Rosario Scalzulli ◽  
Lydia Scarfo ◽  
Attilio Guarini ◽  
Roberta Murru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
One Year

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib is the only once-daily Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor with significant survival benefit vs chemo- and /or immunotherapy in multiple phase 3 studies of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It has profoundly changed the treatment landscape of CLL with the longest follow-up. However, seven years (yrs) after ibrutinib was approved in Italy by regulatory agencies for CLL treatment, available data on the patterns of care of such pts in the setting of clinical practice is limited. Herein we present the first interim analysis (IA) of EVIdeNCE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03720561), a multicenter, observational clinical study designed to describe the current management of pts receiving ibrutinib in real-world setting in Italy in terms of retention rate: the study's primary end point. Methods EVIDENCE 312 treatment-naïve (TN) 38% and relapsed/refractory (R/R) 62% pts with CLL according to the iwCLL diagnosis criteria observed at 39 Italian hematological institutions in the period between November 2018 and October 2019. Inclusion criteria were treatment with ibrutinib according to the European Summary of Product Characteristics as per routine clinical practice started within the previous 3 months. The purpose of this IA is to provide demographics and disease characteristics at baseline and a preliminary evaluation of ibrutinib retention rate after one year of follow-up, along with its safety profile. Results The median age of pts at the time of ibrutinib initiation was 71.0 yrs (range 41.0-89.0), with 60% ≥70 yrs, 63.2% male, and 90% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance 0-1. Baseline Rai stage 0-I, II, and III-IV accounted for 18.3%, 29.7% and 52.1% pts, respectively. Patients in stage IV were observed in 40% of the R/R and 27% in TN subgroup. Considering 120 pts with known mutational status, del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation were present in 50.0% of pts (TN=52.1%, R/R=48.6%), while IGHV was unmutated in 35.0% (TN=33.3% and R/R=36.15) and mutated in 15.0% (TN=14.6%, R/R=15.3%). At baseline, 62.9% of pts had comorbidities and 30.6% presented with a history of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). A CIRS score ≥6 was observed in 28.5% of pts. The median time from CLL diagnosis to the start of ibrutinib was 5.1 yrs (TN 1.75 yrs vs R/R 7.27 yrs). At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of any grade was experienced by 70.7% of pts. Frequencies were as follows: infections (30.8%; COVID-19 infections 3.2%), arthralgia (10.8%), neutropenia (9.3%), fatigue (8.4%), diarrhea (7.7%), atrial fibrillation (7.4%; grade 3-4, 4.2%), fever (7.1%), rash (6.4%), anemia (6.1%) and hypertension (4.2%). Mild bleeding TEAEs were reported in 16.1% of pts with no major bleeding event. TEAEs were more frequent in the elderly (≥65 yrs) while no significant differences in the rate of TEAEs were recorded in TN and R/R pts (69.7% vs 71.4%, respectively). Serious TEAEs were reported in 21.9% of pts. Overall in intention to treat (ITT), 32 deaths (10%) were observed (TN=8, R/R=24). The most common causes of death were infections (3.5%) and progressive disease (PD) (1.9%). Permanent discontinuation was observed in 56 (18%) of the pts (TN=17.2%, R/R=18.7%) and it mostly occurred within the first 6 months. Main causes of discontinuation were toxicity (6.1%), PD (3.8%) or death (3.5%). Temporary interruptions (≤ 3 months without therapy and/or dose modifications) during the whole observation period occurred in 30.3% (TN=35.3%, R/R=27.2%) and 37.7% (TN=37.5%, R/R=37.8%) of pts, respectively, mainly determined by toxicity and clinical judgment. Finally, in this first IA after 17.3 months (range 1.1 - 27.0) median follow-up, the ibrutinib retention rate (calculated as the ratio between the number of patients who retained ibrutinib treatment over the total number of patients at risk) at 1-year was 81.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 77.2% - 86.1%] with no difference between TN 83.2% (95% CI, 75.2% - 89.4%) and R/R 81.2% pts (95% CI, 74.9% - 86.4%). Conclusions EVIDENCE is the first real-world study of ibrutinib use in CLL clinical practice in Italy. Ibrutinib retention rate at one-year suggests a better knowledge and expertise of hematologists in the management of ibrutinib-related toxicities that may result in an improved long-term outcome of pts with CLL. Disclosures Molica: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Honoraria. Scarfo: Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Frigeri: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Sanna: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Reda: Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Tafuri: Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Grugnetti: Janssen: Current Employment. Magarotto: Janssen: Current Employment. Mauro: Tskeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Single-Agent Ibrutinib Vs Standard of Care for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) and Treatment-Naive (TN) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): An Adjusted Comparison of RESONATETM and RESONATE-2TM with the French Lyon-Sud Database

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2039-2039
Author(s):  
Gilles A. Salles ◽  
Lucile Baseggio ◽  
Emmanuel Bachy ◽  
Clementine Sarkozy ◽  
Herve Ghesquieres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Advanced Disease Stage ◽  
Independent Risk Factors ◽  
Male Sex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The benefits of ibrutinib (ibr) have been demonstrated by the phase 3 RESONATE and RESONATE-2 trials for patients (pts) with R/R and TN (≥ 65 years) CLL, respectively. In these studies, ibr showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs approved comparators (ofatumumab [ofa] in RESONATE and chlorambucil [clb] in RESONATE-2). However, a number of other treatment regimens are widely used in clinical practice for CLL based on individual patient and disease characteristics; it is currently unknown if ibr results in better survival outcomes when compared directly with each of these other treatments. AIM: In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, we investigated the relative efficacy of ibr vs physician's choice (PC) in pts with R/R or TN CLL by comparing pt-level data from RESONATE and RESONATE-2 with data from pts in a real-world setting (the Lyon-Sud database). This database holds electronic medical records for 390 pts with CLL from the academic Lyon-Sud Hospital in France; nearly all patients were diagnosed between 1990 and 2014. This is the first analysis of ibr vs PC in a real-world setting for pts with TN CLL. METHODS: Pt-level data from RESONATE (ibr, n = 195; ofa, n = 196) were compared with data on pts with CLL from Lyon-Sud who received 2nd(n = 107) or later-line treatment (3rd [n = 62], 4th [n = 43], and subsequent [n = 51] lines). Similarly, RESONATE-2 (ibr, n = 136; clb, n = 133) pt-level data were compared with those of pts aged ≥ 65 years who received 1st-line treatment (n = 131). In order to account for non-comparability due to lack of randomization, a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PFS and OS between treatments, including line of therapy, age, sex, disease stage (based on Binet/Rai), and deletion 17p or 11q mutations as covariates. For the definition of PFS, missing data for date of disease progression for pts in Lyon-Sud who initiated subsequent therapy were replaced by the conservative proxy of date of initiation of next treatment. Predicted PFS and OS curves for the Lyon-Sud cohort were derived from the multivariate model. RESULTS: For R/R pts in Lyon-Sud, across all treatment lines the most frequent regimens used were rituximab (R) + chemotherapy (n = 46), bendamustine + R (BR; n = 28), fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + R (FCR) (n = 27), clb + R (n = 19), R monotherapy (n = 21), and R-CHOP-based (n = 19); the remaining percentages comprised various other therapies, each used in < 5% of pts. Median age at treatment initiation for Lyon-Sud and RESONATE was 69 and 67 years, respectively; median number of prior therapies was 2 and 3, and median follow-up was 30.0 and 21.9 months. More lines of prior therapy, older age, male sex, advanced disease stage (Binet C/Rai III/IV), and presence of deletion 17p/11q were independent risk factors for worse PFS and OS outcome. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) for ibr vs PC were 0.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.26) and 0.28 (0.17-0.46), respectively. Adjusted HRs for ibr vs the most frequent treatments ranged from 0.09 (R monotherapy) to 0.38 (FCR) for PFS and 0.21 (R monotherapy) to 0.33 (FCR) for OS; all were statistically significant. For TN pts in Lyon-Sud, the most frequent treatment regimens used were FCR (n = 40), clb + R (n = 21), clb monotherapy (n = 17), R-(mini)CHOP (n = 11), and BR (n = 11). Median age at treatment initiation was 73 years for both Lyon-Sud and RESONATE-2; median follow-up was 36.9 and 28.1 months, respectively. Older age, male sex, and advanced disease stage were independent risk factors for worse PFS and OS outcome. After adjustment for baseline differences, the PFS and OS HRs for ibr vs PC were 0.25 (0.14-0.47) and 0.41 (0.17-0.99). Predicted PFS and OS curves for both R/R and TN patients are presented in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Investigation of survival outcomes suggests that ibr administered to pts in RESONATE and RESONATE-2 was more effective than PC used in a real-world cohort of French pts with R/R or TN CLL, suggesting a 4.8-fold improvement in PFS and a 3.4-fold improvement in OS in R/R pts and 4-fold and 2.4-fold improvements in TN pts, respectively. These results further support the growing evidence that ibr significantly improves both PFS and OS vs commonly used regimens in the R/R and TN settings, and could have important implications for improving treatment of CLL in clinical practice. Disclosures Salles: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sarkozy:Sandoz: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche France: Research Funding. Diels:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Besson:Janssen: Employment. MacDougall:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; IMS Health: Employment. Hermans:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; IMS Health: Employment. Healy:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Garside:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Iraqi:Janssen Research & Development: Employment.

scholarly journals Real-World Treatment Patterns Among a Contemporary Cohort of Commercially Insured Mantle Cell Lymphoma Patients in the United States

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4845-4845
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Roeker ◽  
Shaum Kabadi ◽  
Chakkarin Burudpakdee ◽  
Aimee Near ◽  
Keiko Wada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Oral Medications ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Insured Patients

Abstract Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with a poor prognosis. The approval of ibrutinib in November 2013 has changed the treatment paradigm for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. There remains a lack of information on the current treatment patterns used in clinical practice in a contemporary cohort of commercially insured patients. We aimed to identify the treatment patterns for MCL overall and by line of therapy (LOT) and to describe patient demographics and clinical characteristics in a large cohort of commercially insured MCL patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted with the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with ≥1 claim for a NCCN-recommended MCL treatment between November 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 were identified. Index date was the first treatment claim. Patients were also required to have ≥1 diagnosis of MCL during the study period (November 1, 2012 to January 31, 2018), ≥12 months of continuous enrollment prior to index date (pre-index period) and ≥30 days after index date (follow-up period). Patients were excluded if they were ≥65 years at index and not enrolled in Medicare Risk or Medicare Cost, enrolled in a clinical trial during the study period, had evidence of MCL treatment in the pre-index period (except for patients indexed on ibrutinib as it is indicated for MCL patients with ≥1 prior treatment), or had evidence of stem cell transplant (SCT) before index date. The most commonly observed MCL treatment regimens were identified, and demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and treatment durations by regimen were described. Treatment regimen was defined as the combination of all agents observed in the 35-day period after the first MCL treatment claim; treatment duration was defined as the start of treatment until a gap of ≥90 days between end date and next date of treatment or treatment modification. Treatment end date occurred 90 days after the end of the supply for oral medications or 30 days after the last administration for non-oral medications. Results There were 1,785 patients treated with the most commonly observed MCL treatment regimens. The most common regimens, irrespective of LOT, were rituximab monotherapy (including maintenance therapy; n=773, 43.3%), R-CHOP (n=723, 40.5%), B-R (n=436, 24.4%), and ibrutinib monotherapy (n=199, 11.1%). Overall, patients had a median (IQR) age of 57 (52-62) years, and 59.4% were male. Most patients were commercially or self- insured (57.5% and 33.6%, respectively). Patients had a median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 0 (IQR 0-1; mean [SD] 0.9 [1.4]), with the most common CCI components being diabetes (15.7%), chronic pulmonary disease (12.8%), and congestive heart failure (9.5%). During the follow-up period (median [IQR] 22.5 [10.5-35.3] months), in addition to the MCL regimen(s), patients received radiation therapy (17.4%), SCT (10.0%), and/or immunotherapy (0.2%). The use of targeted therapies (i.e. lenalidomide, bortezomib) other than ibrutinib was infrequent. When considering treatment lines, R-CHOP was the most commonly observed first regimen, followed by rituximab, B-R, and ibrutinib; for the second and third observed regimens, rituximab was the most common, followed by ibrutinib (Figure 1). The median (IQR) duration for the first observed regimen was 8.1 (3.9-18.0) months for ibrutinib, 5.0 (3.3-5.6) months for B-R, 4.0 (2.5-4.4) months for R-CHOP, and 1.9 (1.7-4.4) months for rituximab; ibrutinib also had the longest duration in the second and third line (median [IQR] 5.5 [2.4-13.5] months and 8.3 [3.9-12.4] months, respectively). Conclusion This is the largest study of MCL patients describing treatment patterns in current clinical practice among commercially insured patients. MCL patients were most commonly treated with chemoimmunotherapy for all treatment lines while ibrutinib was the second most common LOT2 and LOT3 regimen. As the treatment landscape and clinical practice continues to change with the use of novel agents, future studies are warranted to further study toxicities and outcomes in the real-world setting. Disclosures Kabadi: AstraZeneca: Employment. Burudpakdee:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Near:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Wada:IQVIA received funds from AstraZeneca to conduct the analysis, interpret data, and coauthor the publication.: Consultancy. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Long term outcome for onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) therapy in chronic migraine: A 2-year prospective follow-up audit of patients attending the Hull (UK) migraine clinic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 251581632098544
Author(s):  
Fayyaz Ahmed ◽  
Alina Buture ◽  
Taukir Tanvir ◽  
Modar Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Real World ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Sustained Response ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Large Patient ◽  
Number Of Patients

Objective: The objective of this prospective audit was to determine the long term outcome of patients diagnosed with chronic migraine who were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine. Background: While long term and real-world studies have confirmed the safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in CM, there remains limited information from large patient numbers on the number of cycles and duration of onabotulinumtoxinA needed to successfully convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine, development of resistance to treatment and sustainability of response after stopping treatment. Methods: A total of 655 adult patients diagnosed with chronic migraine who received onabotulinumtoxinA at the Hull Migraine Clinic were followed up prospectively for a minimum of 2 years. OnabotulinumtoxinA was delivered as per the PREEMPT study protocol and patients were asked to keep a headache diary for at least 30 days prior to and continuously after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary outcome assessed in this prospective real-world audit was either the number of patients who achieved a ≥50% reduction in headache days or migraine days or an increment in crystal clear days twice that of baseline in a 30-day period. Patients were also assessed for analgesic medication overuse. Results: Treatment data were available for 655 patients who commenced treatment between July 2010 and October 2016 and followed for at least 2 years (24–70 months), with the last follow-up taking place in September 2018. Of the 655 patients, 380 patients responded to treatment after two cycles and went on to receive the third cycle. Of these, 152 patients were still on active treatment at 2 years. A further 61 patients had relapsed and were on treatment at 2 years. Of the 228 patients who stopped treatment, 112 were successfully converted to episodic migraine and showed a sustained response, 28 reverted to chronic migraine after the initial response despite continuing treatment (developed resistance), 14 were lost to follow up and 61 patients after achieving remission relapsed after a mean of 9 months (range 4–24 months) and recommenced treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. Conclusion: After a minimum of 2 years, 29.4% of patients with chronic migraine who initially responded to treatment were successfully converted to episodic migraine and maintained a sustained response. Forty percent of the initial cohort of responders continued therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA to manage their chronic migraine.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Ponatinib in CML and Ph+ ALL Patients in Real-World Clinical Practice: Data from a Belgian Registry

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1744-1744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Devos ◽  
Koen Theunissen ◽  
Fleur Samantha Benghiat ◽  
Alain Gadisseur ◽  
Stef Meers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Best Response ◽  
History Of ◽  
T315i Mutation

Abstract Background Ponatinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for adult patients with resistant or intolerant chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase, or blast phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL), or those with the T315I mutation. In Belgium, ponatinib has been commercially available since March 2016. The goal of this registry was to collect efficacy and safety data in CML and Ph+ ALL patients and to evaluate ponatinib in routine clinical practice in Belgium. Methods This ongoing, prospective, multi-center registry includes patients ≥18 years of age with CML or Ph+ ALL, who have initiated ponatinib treatment. Demographic, efficacy and safety data were collected for patients enrolled from March 2016 (day 0) onwards. Results up to study month 24 are presented. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. Ethics Committee approval was obtained and all patients provided informed consent. Results At time of data analysis, 34 patients (21 CP-CML and 13 Ph+ ALL) were enrolled. The median age of CP-CML and Ph+ ALL patients was 57 and 55 years, respectively. Patients were heavily pretreated: 90% of CML and 92% of Ph+ ALL patients had received ≥2 prior TKIs. Several patients had one or more risk factors for TKI cardiovascular toxicity: hypertension (10), history of cardiovascular disease (11), smoker (10), hypercholesterolemia (5), and diabetes (4). Median follow-up was 539 days for CML and 135 days for Ph+ ALL patients. The reasons for starting ponatinib therapy were related to refractoriness to previous TKIs (36%), progression (18%), presence of the T315I mutation (18%) or intolerance (29%). Eighty percent (8/10) of the patients who started ponatinib due to intolerance to previous TKIs had received ≥3 prior TKIs. At entry, 17 of the 34 patients (50%) had a confirmed BCR-ABL mutation. Of these 17, 10 (59%; 5 CML and 5 Ph+ ALL) had the T315I mutation. Starting doses of ponatinib in CML patients were 45 mg (76%), 30 mg (10%) and 15 mg (14%) once daily. Starting doses in Ph+ ALL patients were 45 mg (85%), 30 mg (8%) and 15 mg (8%). At latest follow up, the median treatment duration for the 21 CML patients was 531 days (range 15 - 2483) and for the 13 Ph+ ALL patients it was 123 days (range 13 - 1945). Best response was a major molecular response (MMR), which was obtained in 71% of CML patients and 38% of Ph+ ALL patients. The median time-to-best response was 175 days in CML and 35 days in Ph+ ALL patients. In the 10 patients (7 CML and 3 Ph+ ALL) who started ponatinib because of intolerance to several previous TKIs, 80% achieved MMR. The median time to achieve best response in these patients was 192 days for CML and 31 days for Ph+ ALL patients. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 20 patients (59%); the most common were rash (26%), dry skin (9%) and constipation (9%). Three patients reported ≥1 treatment-related serious AE (SAE): thrombocytopenia (n=1), cholecystitis (n=1) and hepatocellular injury (n=1). Three serious cardiovascular events were observed in 1 patient, who had a history of congenital cardiomyopathy and aortic prosthesis. They were scored as not related to ponatinib. Dose reductions or interruptions occurred in 33 cases (20 in CML and 13 in Ph+ ALL patients), with the following reasons most frequently mentioned: AEs (76%), to prevent AEs (18%) and other (6%). Dose increases occurred in 12 cases (10 in CML and 2 in Ph+ ALL patients), for the following reasons: good tolerance of treatment (58%), no or low response (33%) or other (8%). At time of analysis, 19 patients (9 CML and 10 Ph+ ALL) had discontinued treatment, of which 32% due to AEs, 5% due to an SAE, 21% due to planned allogeneic transplant, 16% due to disease progression and 26% due to other reasons. [Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding] Conclusion Real-world evidence from this Belgian registry shows that ponatinib has a favorable efficacy and safety profile in, and supports its use in CML and Ph+ ALL patients who are resistant or intolerant to previous therapies or those with the T315I mutation. Deep molecular responses were obtained in the majority of patients. No new safety signals emerged with ponatinib treatment than those previously reported. Funding: Incyte Biosciences Benelux BV Disclosures Devos: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Theunissen:Incyte: Honoraria. Van Eygen:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kuipers:Incyte Biosciences Benelux BV: Employment.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety Outcomes in Patients with Hemophilia a Receiving Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant) for at Least 5 Years in a Real-World Setting: 6-Year Interim Analysis of the Ahead International and German Studies

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Dimitrios A. Tsakiris ◽  
Johannes Oldenburg ◽  
Robert Klamroth ◽  
Benoît Guillet ◽  
Kate Khair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hemophilia A ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Antihemophilic Factor

Introduction: Long-term effectiveness and safety data in patients treated in routine clinical practice settings can be captured from real-world studies. The international (INT) and German (GER) Antihemophilic factor (recombinant; rAHF) Hemophilia A (HA) outcome Database (AHEAD) studies assess long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with moderate HA (factor VIII level 1-5%) or severe HA (factor VIII &lt;1%) receiving rAHF (ADVATE®; Baxalta US Inc., a Takeda company, Lexington, MA, USA) in routine clinical practice. Methods: These are non-interventional, prospective, long-term, multicenter studies (INT: NCT02078427; GER: DRKS 00000556). Key outcomes include Gilbert scores (primary endpoint; pain scored 0-3; bleeding scored 0-3, and physical exam scored 0-12), annualized bleeding rates (ABRs) by disease severity, and adverse events (AEs). Findings reported here are from the 6-year interim analysis (data cut-off: July 15, 2019), and focus on patients who have received rAHF prophylaxis or on-demand (OD) treatment for ≥5 years in the studies. All data are reported for the safety analysis set (SAS), which comprised patients who passed screening and were assigned to a treatment group or regimen in the INT study, or were enrolled and have received ≥1 dose of rAHF since study enrollment in the GER study. Results: At the time of analysis, the INT study SAS comprised 707 patients, 156 of whom had received ≥5 years of rAHF treatment during the study. The GER study SAS comprised 382 patients, 231 of whom had received ≥5 years of rAHF treatment. Average Gilbert scores (all joints) were consistently low (years 1-6: median 0-1.0; mean 0-1.3) for both children aged 2 to &lt;12 years and adolescents aged 12 to &lt;18 years receiving rAHF prophylaxis within both studies. In the INT study, average Gilbert scores were lower with prophylaxis than with OD therapy in adults (aged ≥18 years) throughout the observation period (years 1-6: median: 0.9-1.4 [n=8-25] vs 1.4-6.3 [n=2-8], respectively; mean: 1.4-2.2 vs 2.1-6.3; respectively); significant differences (P&lt;0.05) between mean values were observed for years 3, 4, and 6. In the GER study, average Gilbert scores were slightly higher with prophylaxis than with OD in adults (years 1-6: median: 0.7-2.2 [n=12-37] vs 0.3-1.4 [n=2-15], respectively; mean: 1.0-2.7 vs 0.5-2.2, respectively; P-values not available). In the INT study, ABRs were consistently lower in patients receiving rAHF prophylaxis than in those receiving rAHF OD, irrespective of disease severity (Table). A similar trend was observed in the GER study in patients with severe HA, whereas ABRs were similar for both treatment regimens in patients with moderate HA. In both studies, greater proportions of patients with moderate or severe HA receiving rAHF prophylaxis had 0 bleeds than those receiving rAHF OD (Table). In the INT study, 842 AEs were reported in 116/156 (74.4%) patients, including 2 treatment-related serious AEs in 2 (1.3%) patients. In the GER study, 1321 AEs were reported in 197/231 (85.3%) patients, including 29 treatment-related serious AEs in 14 (6.1%) patients. Conclusions: These findings in patients receiving rAHF for ≥5 years in a real-world setting corroborate previous data on the long-term efficacy and tolerability of rAHF in patients with moderate or severe HA. rAHF demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining joint health (as measured by Gilbert scores) in adult patients. Table Disclosures Tsakiris: Roche: Research Funding; Shire, a Takeda company: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding. Oldenburg:Sobi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire, a Takeda company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Klamroth:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biotest: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biomarin: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Guillet:CSL Behring: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Shire, a Takeda company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche-Chugai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Khair:Shire, a Takeda company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta/Shire, Takeda companies: Research Funding. Huth-Kühne:Bayer: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Shire, a Takeda company: Consultancy; Sobi: Consultancy. Kurnik:Sobi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biotest: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire, a Takeda company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Regensburger:Takeda Pharma Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Botha:Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fernandez:Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tang:Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ozelo:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioMarin: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals AB0229 A NATIONAL, MULTICENTER, SECONDARY DATA USE STUDY EVALUATING EFFICACY AND RETENTION OF FIRST-LINE BIOLOGIC TREATMENT WITH TOCILIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN REAL-LIFE SETTING FROM TURKBIO REGISTRY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1140-1141
Author(s):  
A. Yazici ◽  
Ö. Özdemir Işik ◽  
E. Dalkiliç ◽  
S. S. Koca ◽  
Y. Pehlivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
First Line ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Biologic Treatment ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background:Tocilizumab (TCZ) is a human anti-interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antibody approved in Turkey for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:In this study our purpose was to describe the disease activity, quality of life (QoL), and retention rate in RA patients who were prescribed TCZ as first-line biologic treatment in a real-world setting.Methods:Anonymized patient registry of TURKBIO was used based in a national, multicenter, and retrospective context. We conducted a search in the registry between years 2013 and 2020 and included adult RA patients who were prescribed with TCZ as their first-line biologic treatment with a post-TCZ follow-up of at least 6 months. CDAI, DAS28-(ESR), and HAQ-DI scores in 6, 12, and 24 months were obtained. Pairwise comparison was carried out for survey scores across baseline and timepoints. Subgroup analysis for route of TCZ administration was performed. EULAR response criteria were used for response evaluation. Retention of TCZ was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis.Results:Overall,130 patients with a mean RA duration of14 years were included in the study. 87.7% of the patients were female and mean age was53 (SD; 15.0). Median duration of follow-up was 18.5 months. Majority (90.8%) of patients were given tocilizumab via intravenous route at baseline. Number of patients with ongoing TCZ treatment and follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months were 121 (93%), 85 (65%), and 46 (35%), respectively. Remission rates at 6, 12, and 24 months per CDAI (<2.8) and DAS28-(ESR) (<2.6) scores were 61.5%, 44.6%, 30%, and 54.6%, 40.8%, 27.7%, respectively. CDAI, DAS28-(ESR) and HAQ-DI survey scores significantly improved at 6, 12 and 26 months, respectively (p<0.001) (Table 1) in both IV and SC TCZ subgroups. At 6, 12 and 24months 74.8%, 82.5% and 86.4% of patients achieved a EULAR good response respectively. Twenty-three patients (17.6%) discontinued TCZ at 24 months. Of these, 19 patients discontinued due to unsatisfactory response. Retention rates of TCZ at 6, 12, and 24 months were 93%, 84.3%, and 72.2%, respectively (Figure 1).Conclusion:TCZ as a first-line biologic treatment was found to be clinically effective in this real-world study with a high retention rate. These results are in line with the results gathered from previous TCZ controlled and real-life studies in which TCZ was found clinically safe and effective.References:[1]Haraoui B, Casado G, Czirjak L, Taylor A, Dong L, Button P, Luder Y, Caporali R. Tocilizumab Patterns of Use, Effectiveness, and Safety in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Final Results from a Set of Multi-National Non-Interventional Studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Jun;6(2):231-243.[2]Favalli EG, Raimondo MG, Becciolini A, Crotti C, Biggioggero M, Caporali R. The management of first-line biologic therapy failures in rheumatoid arthritis: Current practice and future perspectives. Autoimmun Rev. 2017 Dec;16(12):1185-1195.[3]Haraoui B, Jamal S, Ahluwalia V, Fung D, Manchanda T, Khraishi M. Real-World Tocilizumab Use in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Canada: 12-Month Results from an Observational, Noninterventional Study. Rheumatol Ther. 2018 Dec; 5(2): 551–565.Disclosure of Interests:Ayten Yazici Speakers bureau: PFIZER, AbbVie, NOVARTIS, Özlem Özdemir Işik: None declared, Ediz Dalkiliç Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, PFIZER, Roche, MSD, NOVARTIS, Süleyman Serdar Koca Speakers bureau: MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, SANOFİ, Yavuz Pehlivan Speakers bureau: PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, CELLTRION, Consultant of: PFIZER, Soner Şenel: None declared, Nevsun Inanc Speakers bureau: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Paid instructor for: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Consultant of: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Grant/research support from: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Servet Akar Speakers bureau: LILLY, MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, Paid instructor for: LILLY, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB, AMGEN, Grant/research support from: PFIZER, Sema Yilmaz: None declared, Özgül Soysal Gündüz: None declared, Ayse Cefle Speakers bureau: UCB Pharma, PFIZER, MSD, AbbVie, AMGEN, NOVARTIS, Fatos Onen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, LILLY, MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, İbrahim Etem-MENARINI, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, LILLY, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, İbrahim Etem-MENARINI, Grant/research support from: PFIZER

scholarly journals THU0208 Effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritispatients after failure to antitnf or naÏve patients in real world setting. one year follow-up experience

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Fernández Prada ◽  
V. Torrente-Segarra ◽  
R. Expósito Molinero ◽  
N.P. Garrido Puñal ◽  
A. Sánchez-Andrade Fernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
One Year

scholarly journals Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) Is Feasible in Clinical Practice Latin-America (LA): A Real-World Cohort of Patients in Colombia

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4605-4605
Author(s):  
Virginia Abello ◽  
Isabel Munevar ◽  
Rigoberto Gomez ◽  
Monica Osuna Pérez ◽  
Carlos Daniel Bermudez Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
First Line ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Care System

Abstract BACKGROUND: Long-term Tirosin Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) treatment is related to notable adverse events, quality-of-life impact and significant costs to health systems. Many patients in optimal response are candidates to TKI discotinuation that has proven to be safe in clinical trials. TFR has become a new goal for CML management. Information about its implementation in clinical practice in LA is limited. The aim of this study is to describe the results, safety and assess the possible economic impact of a cohort of patients that has discontinued TKI in clinical practice in Colombia. MATERIAL AND METHODS : The Colombian Association of Hematology and Oncology (ACHO)'s hematological disease registry (RENEHOC) is a multicenter nationwide registry on hematologic malignancies that captures information from 18 academic and general community centers with Institutional Ethics Committee approval, since 2018. Since 2019, it has been collecting information on CML. This report represents a sub-analysis of CML patients in the registry in whom discontinuation was performed. Treatment was according to investigator preferences. A total of 449 CML adult patients treated in the last 20 years have been registered until now on RENEHOC. 29 patients were considered eligible for TFR; in 27 of them, TKI have been discontinued. The main outcome measured is survival without TKI re-initiation. RESULTS: At diagnosis the median age was 58 yrs. (IQR 51-65), all were in the chronic phase and 86% had intermediate-higk risk Sokal score. First line treatment was Imatinib in 11, Dasatinib 9, and Nilotinib 7. 5 patients required a second line with Nilotinib, only one of them was considered to have failed first line. 17 discontinuations were performed as a planned physician strategy, 6 were carried out by patient's decision, 3 were forced by toxicities and in one case it was carried out to search for a pregnancy. Median time on TKIs before discontinuation was 73 months (IQR 59-135) and median time in RMM before TFR was 46 moths (IQR 35-71). Due to its retrospective nature, many patients did not have exact information on MR4.5 achievement date, since it was not available in Colombia until 2016. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months (IQR 4-20), 22 (81%) patients remain on TFR. As has been previously described most patients lost MMR in the first 6 months (median time to restart TKI 6 months; IQR 2-10). Only 1 patient did not achieve the MMR after TKI reinitiated, no progressions to accelerated or blastic phase were reported. 3 patients reinitiated the same ITK and 2 changed to another. 1 patient that was initially treated with Imatinib was changed to Nilotinib after reinitiation and after 2 years in MMR 4.5 has again discontinued TKI and has not lost response after 3 months. 9 (33%) patients developed withdrawal syndrome in most cases (7) with mild symptoms, only 2 had moderate symptoms. The estimated savings on TKIs for Colombian health care system for this patients are US$1.156.937, it is calculated that the cost of the PCR analysis performed for this patients to monitor TFR safely was US$35019. CONCLUSIONS: TKI has change the landscape for CML patients, that currently have a life expectancy similar to the general population; however, indefinitely treatment is associated with significant toxicities and a very high cost for the systems. TFR has become a real goal for a selected group of patients with CML. This report represents real-world data in Colombia, showing its feasibility and safety under well-controlled settings. Also, the estimated savings for a health care system of a middle-income country as Colombia are very significant, which is an additional support to insist with the decision makers of the system in the importance of the optimal access to TKIs and the necessary tests so that a greater number of patients can reach the necessary goals for a safe TFR. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abello: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Dr Reddy's: Research Funding. Sossa: Amgen: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Front-Line Ibrutinib Versus Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide and Rituximab (FCR) in Patients with CLL. a Multicenter "Real-World" Study

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2641-2641
Author(s):  
Yair Herishanu ◽  
Shai Levi ◽  
Neta Goldschmidt ◽  
Fortunato Morabito ◽  
Osnat Bairey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
Binet Stage

Abstract Introduction: In previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), treatment with ibrutinib plus rituximab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to the standard fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen, based on the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial. The improvement in PFS with ibrutinib plus rituximab was observed in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) but not in those with an IGHV mutated profile. However, the efficacy of ibrutinib compared to FCR has not yet been investigated in the real-world setting. Methods: A multi-center retrospective "real-world" study to compare the efficacy of front-line ibrutinib monotherapy versus standard FCR in patients with CLL. Demographic and clinical data of the FCR cohort were retrieved from the Israeli CLL Study Group database and of the ibrutinib from the Italian multicenter "Campus CLL" network and the CLL database of the department of hematology at the Sourasky Medical Center. Patients with a documented del(17p) or those who are participating in clinical trials were excluded. In order to fit both treatment samples, the maximum follow-up was censored at 48 months. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to analyze PFS and OS by Kaplan Meier Estimator, Log-Rank test and Cox Regression. In order to control for differences in patients' characteristics, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method with stabilized weights and truncation of 5% extreme score was applied by R. Results: A total of 235 patients who had been front-line treated with either FCR (n=136, 57.9%) or ibrutinib (n=99, 42.1%) were included (Table 1). Most patients were males (n=160, 68.1%), had an unmutated IGHV status (n=115, 70.6%) and were Binet stage B/C (n=191, 83.8%). By FISH, the most frequent abnormality was del(11q) (n=45, 23.1%) followed by trisomy12 (n=34, 17.4%) and del(13q) (n=43, 22.1%). Median time to first treatment was 29.4 months (IQR, 11.9-56.2), and it was not significantly different between ibrutinib (median=24.9 months, IQR 10.3-46.6) and FCR (median=34.0 months, IQR 13.8-60.1; p=0.101). Patients treated with FCR were younger than those treated with ibrutinib (median=58.4 years vs. 71.9 years; p&lt;0.001). The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 48.0 months (37.2 months and 48 months for ibrutinib and FCR, respectively). PFS was longer with ibrutinib than with FCR, with a 3-year rate of PFS of 89.7% vs. 65.8%, respectively (HR=3.5, 95% CI [1.8-6.9], p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1). By subgroup analysis, the PFS benefit with ibrutinib over FCR was maintained in the subgroups of patients age &gt;65 years (n=100, 3-year PFS 89.4% vs. 53.1%; HR=3.9, 95% CI [1.6-9.9], p=0.002), Binet stage B/C (3-year PFS: 90.5% vs. 67.8%; HR=3.5, 95% CI [1.7-7.5], p&lt;0.001) and unmutated IGHV (3-year PFS: 83.0% vs. 78.0%; HR=5.8, 95% CI [2.4-14.5], p&lt;0.001). Among mutated IGHV patients the PFS was not significantly different between ibrutinib and FCR (3-year PFS: 83.0% vs. 78.0%; HR=1.2, 95% CI [0.3, 4.5]; P=0.795). In multivariate analysis (Table 2), only FCR was an independent predictor of decreased PFS (HR=5.1, 95% CI [1.8, 14.3], p=0.002). OS was also better with ibrutinib than with FCR, with a 3-year OS of 96.8% vs. 87.5%, respectively (HR=3.52, 95% CI [1.04-11.92], p=0.031) (Figure 2). Using IPTW, both PFS and OS were still superior with ibrutinib compared to FCR (HR=0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5, p&lt;0.001 and HR=0.2, 95% CI [0.1-0.7], p=0.008, respectively). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, front-line treatment with ibrutinib improves PFS and OS in patients with CLL. Similar to the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial, the improvement in PFS was preferentially observed in patients with unmutated IGHV. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Goldschmidt: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fineman: AbbVie: Research Funding. Mauro: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Tskeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reda: Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Shvidel: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Varettoni: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Aviv: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellestia: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gaidano: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo: AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gattei: abbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Menarini: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Real-World Clinical Management of Patients with Congenital Hemophilia and Inhibitors: Interim Analysis of the FEIBA Global Outcome Study (FEIBA GO)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
Cedric Hermans ◽  
Claude Négrier ◽  
Pål A Holme ◽  
Carmen Escuriola ◽  
Ana R Cid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hemophilia A ◽  
Outcome Study ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
On Demand ◽  
The Past

Introduction and Objective: Development of inhibitory antibodies is a major complication of factor replacement therapy in patients with congenital hemophilia A or B. The FEIBA Global Outcome study (FEIBA GO) assessed the long-term safety and real-world effectiveness of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC; Baxalta US Inc, a Takeda company, Lexington, MA, USA) as prophylaxis or on-demand treatment in patients with congenital hemophilia A or B with inhibitors (PwHI) across different clinical settings. Methods: FEIBA GO (EUPAS6691) is a post-authorization, prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study. Male PwHI diagnosed before study entry and prescribed treatment with aPCC as part of routine clinical practice were followed over 4 years; treatment regimens were prescribed at the physician's discretion. Ethics approval and patient consent were obtained. These data report on an interim analysis (data cutoff, May 16, 2019) on the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) calculated per patient-year of follow-up and aPCC consumption in patients receiving aPCC prophylaxis. Results: Enrollment was started on September 3, 2014 and completed on December 31, 2017. Fifty-one enrolled PwHI have received aPCC prophylaxis (n=37) or on-demand (n=14) treatment from 26 sites in 11 countries (hemophilia A: n=50, hemophilia B: n=1; median [range] age at baseline: 17 [2-71] years). As of May 2019, mean±SD (median, range) ABR was 7.2±8.2 (5.7, 0-30) per patient-year for the 14 patients with ≥2 to &lt;4 years' study follow-up (mean±SD: 3.0±0.6 years). In the 3 patients with ≥4 years of study follow-up (mean±SD: 4.0±0.03 years), mean±SD (median, range) ABR was 14.7±25.3 (0.2, 0-44) per patient-year. Patients received a variety of prophylaxis regimens; data on dosages per infusion and number of weekly infusions administered are provided in the Table. Conclusions: This interim analysis describes the real-world use and effectiveness of aPCC prophylaxis and supports previous data on the prevention of bleeding events in PwHI. The data also highlight the variety of dosing regimens reflecting the real-world use of aPCC prophylaxis in clinical practice. Although patient numbers were small, these data suggest that increased weekly doses are used in patients with more severe bleeding phenotypes. Figure 1 Disclosures Hermans: Kedrion:Speakers Bureau;Octapharma:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Roche:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Pfizer:Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Novo Nordisk:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;LFB:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Shire, a Takeda company:Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Sobi:Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Bayer:Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;EAHAD:Other;WFH:Other;CSL Behring:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;CAF-DCF:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Biogen:Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.Négrier:CSL Behring, Octapharma, Shire/Takeda, Sobi:Research Funding;CSL, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sobi:Other: Travel support;Bayer, Biomarin, CSL Behring, Freeline, LFB, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, Sobi, Spark:Consultancy.Holme:Sobi:Honoraria, Research Funding;Bayer:Honoraria, Research Funding;CSL Behring:Honoraria;Novo Nordisk:Honoraria;Octapharma:Research Funding;Pfizer:Honoraria, Research Funding;Shire, a Takeda company:Honoraria, Research Funding.Escuriola:Grifols:Honoraria;CSL Behring:Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Biotest:Honoraria, Research Funding;Biomarin:Honoraria;Bayer:Honoraria;Kedrion:Honoraria;Shire, a Takeda company:Honoraria;Octapharma:Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Novo Nordisk:Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche:Honoraria;Sobi:Honoraria, Research Funding.Cid:Roche:Consultancy, Honoraria;Sobi:Consultancy, Honoraria;Novo Nordisk:Honoraria;Shire, a Takeda company:Honoraria.Kemenyash:Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Botha:Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Cano-Garcia:Sanofi Genzyme:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company;Shire, a Takeda company:Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Ended employment in the past 24 months.Windyga:Sanofi:Honoraria, Research Funding;Alexion:Honoraria, Research Funding;Alnylam:Honoraria, Research Funding;Baxalta/Shire, a Takeda company:Honoraria, Research Funding;Bayer:Honoraria, Research Funding;Siemens:Honoraria, Research Funding;Sobi:Honoraria, Research Funding;Werfen:Honoraria, Research Funding;CSL Behring:Honoraria, Research Funding;Ferring Pharmaceuticals:Honoraria, Research Funding;Novo Nordisk:Honoraria, Research Funding;Octapharma:Honoraria, Research Funding;Rigel Pharmaceuticals:Honoraria, Research Funding;Roche:Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document