Background Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a recognized complication of RA. Prior studies have suggested stabilization or improvement of ILD in patients with RA (RA-ILD) treated with abatacept. [1,2] Few studies ha...
Background Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a recognized complication of RA. Prior studies have suggested stabilization or improvement of ILD in patients with RA (RA-ILD) treated with abatacept. [1,2] Few studies have evaluated the background incidence rate of RA-ILD. Objectives To determine the incidence rate of clinically significant ILD in a cohort of patients with RA receiving abatacept + MTX versus placebo + MTX from multiple clinical trials. Methods This retrospective analysis examined pooled safety data from ten phase 3 clinical trials of patients with RA treated with background MTX in combination with abatacept or placebo. The term ‘interstitial lung’ was used to identify incidences of ILD reported as AEs in the safety data. The exposure period for each patient was censored at first incidence of clinically significant ILD, 56 days after last study drug administration, or 1 day prior to commencement of another study drug, whichever occurred first. Poisson regression models were used to estimate crude incidence rates per 100 person-years for baseline risk factors within treatment groups, and to estimate incidence rate ratios for the placebo + MTX versus abatacept + MTX treatment groups. Disease activity parameters, DAS28 (CRP) and HAQ-DI, were estimated from baseline to the time of ILD diagnosis (as reported by AEs). Results In total, 3,708 patients (10,521 person-years) treated with abatacept + MTX and 999 patients (938 person-years) treated with placebo + MTX were included. Patients treated with placebo + MTX had a higher incidence rate of ILD per 100 person-years (95% CI) versus those treated with abatacept + MTX (0.43 [0.16–1.14] vs 0.10 [0.05–0.18], respectively; Figure 1). The incidence rate ratio of placebo + MTX versus abatacept + MTX treatment groups for the total population was 4.49 (95% CI, 1.23–13.42). For all subpopulations stratified by baseline risk factors (where ≥ 1 patient in each treatment group had an ILD event), incidence rate ratios wer
Introduction and objectives To explore safety, tolerability, treatment response and hospitalizations in adult patients with schizophrenia treated with long-acting injectable risperidone (RLAI) or oral antipsychotic st...
Introduction and objectives To explore safety, tolerability, treatment response and hospitalizations in adult patients with schizophrenia treated with long-acting injectable risperidone (RLAI) or oral antipsychotic standard of care (oAP) in routine clinical practice. Methods Prospective one-year open-label non-interventional study exploring flexible doses of RLAI and oAPs. Primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations from baseline to endpoint. Additional outcomes were changes in the Clinical Global Impression of Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH), patient functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning) and treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results The intent-to-treat analysis included 561 patients on RLAI and 522 patients on oAPs (44% female gender, mean age (±SD) 42.2±13.1 years). Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable, yet RLAI-treated patients had higher disease severity, lower baseline functioning and more substance abuse. The number of hospitalizations did not differ between the two groups while median duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter with RLAI (12.3 vs 20.6 days). Positive, negative, cognitive symptoms, disease severity, patient functioning and medication satisfaction improved significantly better with RLAI than oAPs. The most frequently reported TEAEs (=2% in any group) for RLAI and oral APs were increase of body weight (5.0%; 5.6%), psychotic disorder (2.7%; 4.0%), schizophrenia (2.5%; 3.1%), anxiety (2.3%; 2.7%), insomnia (0.9%; 3.1%) and somnolence (0.4%; 2.5%), respectively. Conclusion This one-year non-interventional study supports results of recent randomized controlled trials that treatment with RLAI is associated with less days spent in hospital, better symptomatic and functional outcomes and higher patient satisfaction with medication compared to oral APs.
Introduction Despite the high response rates seen with Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory Large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), post-therapy relapse remains a key challenge. To date, no...
Introduction Despite the high response rates seen with Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory Large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), post-therapy relapse remains a key challenge. To date, no study has evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of experimental CAR T-cell products versus currently approved CAR T-cell therapies. Objective To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of novel, experimental CAR T-cell products against the first FDA-approved CAR T-cell construct, Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta). Methods In compliance with the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review, which identified 16 independent, early-phase clinical trials consisting of 193 LBCL patients with individual patient data (IPD). We categorized eight pooled populations based on the target antigens (CD19, CD20), co-stimulatory domains (CD28, 4-1BB), and CAR T-cells administered with or without concomitant autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The pooled populations were categorized as follows: (1) dual targeting strategies, such as tandem ***20, n = 28; (2) co-infusion of CD19 and CD20 CARs, n = 21; (3) third-generation CARs, n = 26; (4) CD19 CARs with modified constructs for reduced toxicity, including ***.86, n = 21; and (5) ***828Z, n = 14; (6) CD19. 4-1BB.S manufactured in China, n = 24; (7) concomitant ASCT and ***28, n = 45; and (8) CD20 CARs with a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain, n = 14. A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) statistical technique was applied to account for heterogeneity in the study population across trials. Estimates for the experimental CAR T-cell trials were adjusted using patient-level data to match the ZUMA-1 (Yescarta, n = 108) study population based on mutually reported key baseline covariates, including age, disease stage, histology, refractoriness, number of prior lines of therapy, and extranodal disease. The study endpoints for this study included progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine r
暂无评论