Explore the vast range of titles available.

The therapeutic landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has profoundly changed over the past 7 years. Most patients with chronic phase (CP) now have a normal life expectancy. Another goal is achieving a stable deep molecular response (DMR) and discontinuing medication for treatment-free remission (TFR). The European LeukemiaNet convened an expert panel to critically evaluate and update the evidence to achieve these goals since its previous recommendations. First-line treatment is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; imatinib brand or generic, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib are available first-line). Generic imatinib is the cost-effective initial treatment in CP. Various contraindications and side-effects of all TKIs should be considered. Patient risk status at diagnosis should be assessed with the new EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS)-score. Monitoring of response should be done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction whenever possible. A change of treatment is recommended when intolerance cannot be ameliorated or when molecular milestones are not reached. Greater than 10% BCR-ABL1 at 3 months indicates treatment failure when confirmed. Allogeneic transplantation continues to be a therapeutic option particularly for advanced phase CML. TKI treatment should be withheld during pregnancy. Treatment discontinuation may be considered in patients with durable DMR with the goal of achieving TFR.

In this randomized noninferiority trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular events and cancers occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor, and noninferiority of tofacitinib with respect to these end points was not established.

In three phase 3 trials involving patients with ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib (an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor) was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. Infections were more common with tofacitinib. Ulcerative colitis is characterized by an increased frequency of bowel movements and bloody diarrhea, which has a negative effect on quality of life. 1 Current therapies for ulcerative colitis include mesalamine, glucocorticoids, thiopurines, and antagonists to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and α4β7 integrin. 1 – 5 Many patients do not have a response to these therapies or have a response that is not sustained. Additional treatment options with new mechanisms of action are needed to increase efficacy rates. The Janus kinase (JAK) family comprises four intracellular tyrosine kinases — JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and nonreceptor tyrosine-protein kinase 2 — that activate signal transducers and . . .

Both single-agent ibrutinib and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab have shown superior efficacy to chlorambucil monotherapy and are standard first-line treatments in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the efficacy of the combination of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. iLLUMINATE is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 74 academic and community hospitals in Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Turkey, the EU, and the USA in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma, either aged 65 years or older or younger than 65 years with coexisting conditions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation schedule, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and cytogenetics, to receive ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (oral ibrutinib [420 mg once daily continuously] combined with intravenous obinutuzumab [100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, 1000 mg on day 8, and 1000 mg on day 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles, for a total of six cycles]) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil [0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for six cycles] combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). Allocation concealment was achieved using an interactive web response system. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02264574), and patient enrolment is complete. Between Oct 6, 2014, and Oct 12, 2015, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n=113) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=116). After a median follow-up of 31·3 months (IQR 29·4–33·2), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab group (median not reached [95% CI 33·6–non-estimable]) than in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (19·0 months [15·1–22·1]; hazard ratio 0·23; 95% CI 0·15–0·37; p<0·0001). Estimated 30-month progression-free survival was 79% (95% CI 70–85) in the ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab group and 31% (23–40) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in both groups were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Serious adverse events occurred in 65 (58%) of 113 patients treated with ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and 40 (35%) of 115 patients treated with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab. Ibrutinib or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in one (1%) of 113 patients in the ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab group (sudden death) and one (1%) of 115 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin). Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab is an efficacious and safe chemotherapy-free combination treatment in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma independent of high-risk features and provides an alternative first-line treatment option for these patients. Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, and Janssen Research and Development.

In a randomized trial, patients who received evobrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, at 75 mg daily had significantly fewer enhancing lesions on MRI during weeks 12 through 24 than those who received placebo. However, there was no significant between-group difference for either a lower or a higher dose of evobrutinib, or in the annualized relapse rate or disability progression at any dose.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis triaL (ORAL) Strategy aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and adalimumab plus methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with a previous inadequate response to methotrexate. ORAL Strategy was a 1 year, double-blind, phase 3b/4, head-to-head, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18 years or older with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) monotherapy, oral tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) plus methotrexate, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus methotrexate at 194 centres in 25 countries. Eligible patients received live zoster vaccine at investigators' discretion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who attained an American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% (ACR50) at month 6 in the full analysis set (patients who were randomly assigned to a group and received at least one dose of the study treatment). Non-inferiority between groups was shown if the lower bound of the 98·34% CI of the difference between comparators was larger than −13·0%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02187055. 1146 patients received treatment (384 had tofacitinib monotherapy; 376 had tofacitinib and methotrexate; and 386 had adalimumab and methotrexate). At 6 months, ACR50 response was attained in 147 (38%) of 384 patients with tofacitinib monotherapy, 173 (46%) of 376 patients with tofacitinib and methotrexate, and 169 (44%) of 386 patients with adalimumab and methotrexate. Non-inferiority was declared for tofacitinib and methotrexate versus adalimumab and methotrexate (difference 2% [98·34% CI −6 to 11]) but not for tofacitinib monotherapy versus either adalimumab and methotrexate (−6 [−14 to 3]) or tofacitinib and methotrexate (−8 [−16 to 1]). In total, 23 (6%) of 384 patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy, 26 (7%) of 376 patients receiving tofacitinib plus methotrexate, and 36 (9%) of 386 patients receiving adalimumab plus methotrexate discontinued due to adverse events. Two (1%) of the 384 patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy died. No new or unexpected safety issues were reported for either treatment in this study for up to 1 year. Tofacitinib and methotrexate combination therapy was non-inferior to adalimumab and methotrexate combination therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in this trial. Tofacitinib monotherapy was not shown to be non-inferior to either combination. Pfizer Inc.

Vitiligo is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes skin depigmentation. A cream formulation of ruxolitinib (an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2) resulted in repigmentation in a phase 2 trial involving adults with vitiligo. We conducted two phase 3, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials (Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 [TRuE-V1] and 2 [TRuE-V2]) in North America and Europe that involved patients 12 years of age or older who had nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering 10% or less of total body-surface area. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle control twice daily for 24 weeks to all vitiligo areas on the face and body, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. The primary end point was a decrease (improvement) of at least 75% from baseline in the facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI; range, 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating a greater area of facial depigmentation), or F-VASI75 response, at week 24. There were five key secondary end points, including improved responses on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale. A total of 674 patients were enrolled, 330 in TRuE-V1 and 344 in TRuE-V2. In TRuE-V1, the percentage of patients with an F-VASI75 response at week 24 was 29.8% in the ruxolitinib-cream group and 7.4% in the vehicle group (relative risk, 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 8.4; P<0.001). In TRuE-V2, the percentages were 30.9% and 11.4%, respectively (relative risk, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5 to 4.9; P<0.001). The results for key secondary end points showed superiority of ruxolitinib cream over vehicle control. Among patients who applied ruxolitinib cream throughout 52 weeks, adverse events occurred in 54.8% in TRuE-V1 and 62.3% in TRuE-V2; the most common adverse events were application-site acne (6.3% and 6.6%, respectively), nasopharyngitis (5.4% and 6.1%), and application-site pruritus (5.4% and 5.3%). In two phase 3 trials, application of ruxolitinib cream resulted in greater repigmentation of vitiligo lesions than vehicle control through 52 weeks, but it was associated with acne and pruritus at the application site. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and safety of ruxolitinib cream in patients with vitiligo. (Funded by Incyte; TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04052425 and NCT04057573.).

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib for 3 months was more effective than placebo in reducing joint manifestations, as determined by the American College of Rheumatology 20% response rate, but was associated with herpes infections.

Abrocitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a phase 2b trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib monotherapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (JADE MONO-1), patients (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Investigator Global Assessment score ≥3, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] score ≥16, percentage of body surface area affected ≥10%, and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score ≥4) with a bodyweight of 40 kg or more, were enrolled at 69 sites in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to oral abrocitinib 100 mg, abrocitinib 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system, stratified by baseline disease severity and age. Patients, investigators, and the funder of the study were masked to study treatment. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response (score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline), and the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 75% improvement in EASI score from baseline (EASI-75) score, both assessed at week 12. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication. Safety was assessed in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03349060. Between Dec 7, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 387 patients were enrolled: 156 were assigned to abrocitinib 100 mg, 154 to abrocitinib 200 mg, and 77 to placebo. All enrolled patients received at least one dose of study treatment and thus were evaluable for 12-week efficacy. Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group than in the placebo group (37 [24%] of 156 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p=0·0037) and in the abrocitinib 200 mg group compared with the placebo group (67 [44%] of 153 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, compared with the placebo group, the proportion of patients who had achieved an EASI-75 response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group (62 [40%] of 156 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001) and abrocitinib 200 mg group (96 [63%] of 153 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported in 108 (69%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, 120 (78%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and 44 (57%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in five (3%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, five (3%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and three (4%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Monotherapy with oral abrocitinib once daily was effective and well tolerated in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Pfizer.

Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0–2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1–2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5–21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1–6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4–2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36–0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.