Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies, are arguably the most important development in cancer therapy over the past decade. The indications for these agents continue to expand across malignancies and disease settings, thus reshaping many of the previous standard-of-care approaches and bringing new hope to patients. One of the costs of these advances is the emergence of a new spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often distinctly different from the classical chemotherapy-related toxicities. Owing to the growing use of ICIs in oncology, clinicians will increasingly be confronted with common but also rare irAEs; hence, awareness needs to be raised regarding the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of these toxicities. In this Review, we provide an overview of the various types of irAEs that have emerged to date. We discuss the epidemiology of these events and their kinetics, risk factors, subtypes and pathophysiology, as well as new insights regarding screening and surveillance strategies. We also highlight the most important aspects of the management of irAEs.Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with certain forms of cancer; however, these agents also have adverse effects that are often quite different to those of more traditional cancer therapies. In this Review, the authors describe the epidemiology, treatment and management of the various immune-related adverse events that can occur in patients receiving ICIs.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) presents a major public health problem for which currently available treatments are modestly effective. We report the findings of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03537014) to test the efficacy and safety of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted therapy for the treatment of patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities such as dissociation, depression, a history of alcohol and substance use disorders, and childhood trauma. After psychiatric medication washout, participants ( n  = 90) were randomized 1:1 to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with three preparatory and nine integrative therapy sessions. PTSD symptoms, measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5, the primary endpoint), and functional impairment, measured with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS, the secondary endpoint) were assessed at baseline and at 2 months after the last experimental session. Adverse events and suicidality were tracked throughout the study. MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared with placebo ( P  < 0.0001, d  = 0.91) and to significantly decrease the SDS total score ( P  = 0.0116, d  = 0.43). The mean change in CAPS-5 scores in participants completing treatment was −24.4 (s.d. 11.6) in the MDMA group and −13.9 (s.d. 11.5) in the placebo group. MDMA did not induce adverse events of abuse potential, suicidality or QT prolongation. These data indicate that, compared with manualized therapy with inactive placebo, MDMA-assisted therapy is highly efficacious in individuals with severe PTSD, and treatment is safe and well-tolerated, even in those with comorbidities. We conclude that MDMA-assisted therapy represents a potential breakthrough treatment that merits expedited clinical evaluation. Results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial demonstrate that MDMA-assisted therapy is safe and effective in treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Objective To determine the frequency of prescriptions for short term use of oral corticosteroids, and adverse events (sepsis, venous thromboembolism, fractures) associated with their use.Design Retrospective cohort study and self controlled case series.Setting Nationwide dataset of private insurance claims.Participants Adults aged 18 to 64 years who were continuously enrolled from 2012 to 2014.Main outcome measures Rates of short term use of oral corticosteroids defined as less than 30 days duration. Incidence rates of adverse events in corticosteroid users and non-users. Incidence rate ratios for adverse events within 30 day and 31-90 day risk periods after drug initiation.Results Of 1 548 945 adults, 327 452 (21.1%) received at least one outpatient prescription for short term use of oral corticosteroids over the three year period. Use was more frequent among older patients, women, and white adults, with significant regional variation (all P<0.001). The most common indications for use were upper respiratory tract infections, spinal conditions, and allergies. Prescriptions were provided by a diverse range of specialties. Within 30 days of drug initiation, there was an increase in rates of sepsis (incidence rate ratio 5.30, 95% confidence interval 3.80 to 7.41), venous thromboembolism (3.33, 2.78 to 3.99), and fracture (1.87, 1.69 to 2.07), which diminished over the subsequent 31-90 days. The increased risk persisted at prednisone equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/day (incidence rate ratio 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P<0.001).Conclusion One in five American adults in a commercially insured plan were given prescriptions for short term use of oral corticosteroids during a three year period, with an associated increased risk of adverse events.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are monoclonal antibodies that target two key signalling pathways related to T cell activation and exhaustion, by binding to and inhibiting cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) or PD1 and its ligand PDL1. ICIs, such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab, are approved for the treatment of numerous and diverse cancer types, in various combination regimens, and are now an established cornerstone of cancer therapeutics. Toxicities induced by ICIs are autoimmune in nature and are referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAEs); these events can affect any organ system in an unpredictable fashion. Importantly, irAEs can manifest as endocrinopathies involving the thyroid (hypothyroidism or thyrotoxicosis), pituitary (hypophysitis), adrenal glands (adrenal insufficiency) and pancreas (diabetes mellitus). These events are a frequent source of acute and persistent morbidity in patients treated with ICIs and can even be fatal. Over the past few years, there has been a growing understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of irAEs that has led to the development of more effective management strategies. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathobiology, clinical manifestations and treatment approaches to endocrine toxicities arising from ICIs.Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now an established cornerstone of cancer therapeutics; however, ICIs are associated with toxicities in various organs, termed immune-related adverse events. This Review highlights current understanding in ICI-induced endocrinopathies, including epidemiology, aetiology, clinical manifestations and approaches to treatment.

Enasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) proteins. We evaluated the safety and activity of enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. This open-label, phase 1b/2 trial was done at 43 clinical sites in 12 countries (the USA, Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and South Korea). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. In the phase 1b dose-finding portion, patients received oral enasidenib 100 mg/day or 200 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles, plus subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 per day for 7 days of each cycle. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to enasidenib plus azacitidine or azacitidine-only, stratified by acute myeloid leukaemia subtype (de novo or secondary). The primary endpoint in the phase 2 portion was the overall response rate in the intention-to-treat population at a prespecified interim analysis (Aug 20, 2019) when all patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02677922, and is ongoing. Between June 3, 2016, and Aug 2, 2018, 322 patients were screened and 107 patients with mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia were enrolled. At data cutoff for the interim analysis, 24 patients (including two from the phase 1 portion) were still receiving their assigned treatment. Six patients were enrolled in the phase 1b dose-finding portion of the trial and received enasidenib 100 mg (n=3) or 200 mg (n=3) in combination with azacitidine. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred and the enasidenib 100 mg dose was selected for phase 2. In phase 2, 101 patients were randomly assigned to enasidenib plus azacitidine (n=68) or azacitidine only (n=33). Median age was 75 years (IQR 71–78). 50 (74%; 95% CI 61–84) patients in the enasidenib plus azacitidine combination group and 12 (36%; 20–55) patients in the azacitidine monotherapy group achieved an overall response (odds ratio 4·9 [95% CI 2·0–11·9]; p=0·0003). Common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with enasidenib plus azacitidine were thrombocytopenia (25 [37%] of 68 vs six [19%] of 32 in the azacitidine-only group), neutropenia (25 [37%] vs eight [25%]), anaemia (13 [19%] vs seven [22%]), and febrile neutropenia (11 [16%] vs five [16%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 29 (43%) patients in the combination group and 14 (44%) patients in the azacitidine-only group; serious treatment-related adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients in either group were febrile neutropenia (nine [13%] in the combination group vs five [16%] in the azacitidine-only group), differentiation syndrome (seven [10%] vs none), and pneumonia (three [4%] vs two [6%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Combination enasidenib plus azacitidine was well tolerated and significantly improved overall response rates compared with azacitidine monotherapy, suggesting that this regimen can improve outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia. Bristol Myers Squibb.

A decade after the launch of the FDA Sentinel Initiative, it has matured from a pilot program designed to assess potential drug-safety signals in insurance claims into a core component of the agency’s evolving safety surveillance system.

Chagas disease is a major neglected vector-borne disease. In this study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of three oral E1224 (a water-soluble ravuconazole prodrug) regimens and benznidazole versus placebo in adult chronic indeterminate Chagas disease. In this proof-of-concept, double-blind, randomised phase 2 clinical trial, we recruited adults (18–50 years) with confirmed diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection from two outpatient units in Bolivia. Patients were randomised with a computer-generated randomisation list, which was stratified by centre and used a block size of ten. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to five oral treatment groups: high-dose E1224 (duration 8 weeks, total dose 4000 mg), low-dose E1224 (8 weeks, 2000 mg), short-dose E1224 (4 weeks + 4 weeks placebo, 2400 mg), benznidazole (60 days, 5 mg/kg per day), or placebo (8 weeks, E1224-matched tablets). Double-blinding was limited to the E1224 and placebo arms, and assessors were masked to all treatment allocations. The primary efficacy endpoint was parasitological response to E1224 at the end of treatment, assessed by PCR. The secondary efficacy endpoints were parasitological response to benznidazole at end of treatment, assessed by PCR; sustainability of parasitological response until 12 months; parasite clearance and changes in parasite load; incidence of conversion to negative response in conventional and non-conventional (antigen trypomastigote chemiluminescent ELISA [AT CL-ELISA]) serological response; changes in levels of biomarkers; and complete response. The primary analysis population consisted of all randomised patients by their assigned treatment arms. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01489228. Between July 19, 2011, and July 26, 2012, we screened 560 participants with confirmed Chagas disease, of whom 231 were enrolled and assigned to high-dose E1224 (n=45), low-dose E1224 (n=48), short-dose E1224 (n=46), benznidazole (n=45), or placebo (n=47). Parasite clearance was observed with E1224 during the treatment phase, but no sustained response was seen with low-dose and short-dose regimens, whereas 13 patients (29%, 95% CI 16·4–44·3) had sustained response with the high-dose regimen compared with four (9%, 2·4–20·4) in the placebo group (p<0·0001). Benznidazole had a rapid and sustained effect on parasite clearance, with 37 patients (82%, 67·9–92·0) with sustained response at 12-month follow-up. After 1 week of treatment, mean quantitative PCR repeated measurements showed a significant reduction in parasite load in all treatment arms versus placebo. Parasite levels in the low-dose and short-dose E1224 groups gradually returned to placebo levels. Both treatments were well tolerated. Reversible, dose-dependent liver enzyme increases were seen with E1224 and benznidazole. 187 (81%) participants developed treatment-emergent adverse events and six (3%) developed treatment-emergent serious adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events were headaches, nausea, pruritus, peripheral neuropathy, and hypersensitivity. E1224 is the first new chemical entity developed for Chagas disease in decades. E1224 displayed a transient, suppressive effect on parasite clearance, whereas benznidazole showed early and sustained efficacy until 12 months of follow-up. Despite PCR limitations, our results support increased diagnosis and access to benznidazole standard regimen, and provide a development roadmap for novel benznidazole regimens in monotherapy and in combinations with E1224. Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative.

Background and aim Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. Methods We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. Results Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. Conclusions The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.