Explore the vast range of titles available.

PD-L1 and VEGF blockade with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been shown to improve survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. TIGIT is an immune checkpoint regulator implicated in many cancers, including unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Here, we evaluate the clinical activity and safety of the addition of tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT monoclonal antibody, to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. This randomised, open-label, phase 1b–2 umbrella study was conducted at 26 centres across China, France, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years old or older with previously untreated locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, Child-Pugh class A disease, and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using permuted block randomisation to receive either tiragolumab 600 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg or atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, administered via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients received treatment until unacceptable toxic effects or loss of clinical benefit, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Analysis of clinical activity was done in the efficacy-evaluable population (all patients who received at least one dose of each drug for their assigned treatment regimen) and safety was assessed in all patients who received any study treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04524871, and is ongoing. Between Aug 20, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, we assessed 154 patients for eligibility and 59 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=41) or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=18); one patient in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group experienced an adverse event before receiving any treatment and withdrew from the study. Median age was 65·0 years (IQR 61·0–73·0). 46 (79%) of 58 patients were male and 12 (21%) were female. Most patients were Asian (23 [40%]) or White (21 [36%]). At the time of clinical cutoff (Aug 21, 2023), median follow-up was 20·6 months (IQR 10·6–28·0) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 14·0 months (4·2–18·5) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. The confirmed objective response rate was 43% (95% CI 27–59, n=17) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 11% (1–35, n=2) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. All patients in both groups experienced an adverse event. The incidence of pruritis (20 [50%] of 40 patients vs three [17%] of 18 patients), arthralgia (13 [33%] vs two [11%]), and diarrhoea (12 [30%] vs one [6%]) was notably higher in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group than in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, although these were mainly grade 1–2. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (six [15%] of 40 patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group vs two [11%] of 18 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group), aspartate aminotransferase increased (three [8%] of 40 patients vs one [6%] of 18 patients), and proteinuria (two [5%] of 40 patients vs two [11%] of 18 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 21 (53%) of 40 patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and in ten (56%) of 18 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (due to cholestasis) and two patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (due to oesophageal varices haemorrhage and upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage). The addition of tiragolumab to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not appear to result in a substantial worsening of treatment-related or immune-mediated adverse events, and no new safety signals were identified. This signal-seeking study suggests that the addition of tiragolumab to atezolizumab and bevacizumab might be more clinically active than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab alone in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on these data, further study of combination tiragolumab plus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is warranted. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

ObjectivesTo identify factors associated with COVID-19 test positivity and assess viral and antibody test concordance.DesignObservational retrospective cohort study.SettingOptum de-identified electronic health records including over 700 hospitals and 7000 clinics in the USA.ParticipantsThere were 891 754 patients who had a COVID-19 test identified in their electronic health record between 20 February 2020 and 10 July 2020.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPer cent of viral and antibody tests positive for COVID-19 (‘positivity rate’); adjusted ORs for factors associated with COVID-19 viral and antibody test positivity; and per cent concordance between positive viral and subsequent antibody test results.ResultsOverall positivity rate was 9% (70 472 of 771 278) and 12% (11 094 of 91 741) for viral and antibody tests, respectively. Positivity rate was inversely associated with the number of individuals tested and decreased over time across regions and race/ethnicities. Antibody test concordance among patients with an initial positive viral test was 91% (71%–95% depending on time between tests). Among tests separated by at least 2 weeks, discordant results occurred in 7% of patients and 9% of immunocompromised patients. Factors associated with increased odds of viral and antibody positivity in multivariable models included: male sex, Hispanic or non-Hispanic black or Asian race/ethnicity, uninsured or Medicaid insurance and Northeast residence. We identified a negative dose effect between the number of comorbidities and viral and antibody test positivity. Paediatric patients had reduced odds (OR=0.60, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.64) of a positive viral test but increased odds (OR=1.90, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.23) of a positive antibody test compared with those aged 18–34 years old.ConclusionsThis study identified sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 test positivity and provided real-world evidence demonstrating high antibody test concordance among viral-positive patients.

Abstract Objective Refilling an opioid prescription early is an important risk factor of prescription opioid abuse and misuse; we aimed to understand the scope of this behavior. This study was conducted to quantify the prevalence and distribution of early refills among patients prescribed opioids. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing dispensed prescription records. Patients filling one or more prescription opioids were identified and followed for one year. Early refills were defined as having a second prescription filled ≥15% early relative to the days’ supply of the previous prescription for the same opioid (according to the National Drug Code [NDC]). The distribution of the number of early refills and patient characteristics were assessed. Results A total of 60.6 million patients met the study criteria; 28.8% had two or more opioid prescriptions for the same opioid during follow-up. Less than 3% of all patients receiving an opioid had an early refill. Approximately 10% of those with two or more opioid prescriptions for the same drug had an early refill. For patients with multiple fills (N = 1.5 million with extended-release long-acting [ER/LA] opioids; N = 17.1 million with immediate-release short-acting [IR/SA] opioids), early refills were more common among patients with an ER/LA opioid (18.5%) compared with an IR/SA opioid (8.7%). Three-quarters of patients with an early refill had only one (70.9% and 78.4% for ER/LA and IR/SA, respectively). Conclusion Refilling an opioid prescription with the same opioid early is an infrequent behavior within all opioid users, but more common in ER/LA users. Patients who refilled early tended to do so just once.

Abstract Background Amid continued uncertainty about the management of cancer patients during the pandemic, this study sought to obtain real-world data on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) before COVID-19 diagnosis and its association with severity and survival outcomes in cancer patients who contracted COVID-19. Methods Cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified from a large electronic health record database; those treated with ICIs before COVID-19+ diagnosis were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those not treated with ICIs, using a 2-step matching procedure. A descriptive analysis examined the difference in COVID-19 mortality (30-day and overall) and severity outcomes between the 2 cohorts, and overall survival was compared. Results Among 17 545 adults ≥18 years with cancer who tested positive for COVID-19 between February 20, 2020, and January 28, 2021, in the US, 228 ICI-treated patients were matched to 456 non-ICI-treated patients, comprising the 2 study cohorts. Clinical characteristics differed significantly between the 2 cohorts before matching, with metastatic disease, lung cancer, a history of smoking, and the presence of pulmonary comorbidities being more common in the ICI-treated cohort; after matching, the 2 cohorts were similar. There were no significant differences between the ICI-treated and non-ICI-treated cohorts for 30-day mortality (12.7% vs. 14.9%, P = .235), overall mortality (22.4% vs. 22.4%, P = 1.000), hospitalization (38.6% vs. 39.0%, P = .912), or emergency department visits (16.7% vs. 14.7%, P = .500). Overall survival was similar between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion This analysis adds to the clinical evidence base that use of ICIs before SARS-CoV-2 infection does not affect COVID-19 severity or survival outcomes, supporting the continued use of ICIs in cancer patients during the pandemic. At the intersection of COVID-19 and cancer lies a population vulnerable to infection because of underlying disease and possible immunosuppression. This article examines whether cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were at greater risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than cancer patients who were not receiving ICIs.