Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR by pulmonary function subgroup

Background Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy demonstrated clinical benefits inpatients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation.Pretreatment lung function is a confounding factor that potentially impacts the efficacyand safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy. Methods Two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroupPhase 3 studies randomised patients to receive placebo or lumacaftor (600 mgonce daily [qd] or 400 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mgq12h) for 24 weeks. Prespecified analyses of pooled efficacy and safety data by lungfunction, as measured by percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second(ppFEV1), were performed for patients with baseline ppFEV1 <40 (n=81) and ≥40(n=1016) and screening ppFEV1 <70 (n=730) and ≥70 (n=342). These studies wereregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01807923 and NCT01807949). Findings The studies were conducted from April 2013 through April 2014.Improvements in the primary endpoint, absolute change from baseline at week 24 inppFEV1, were observed with both lumacaftor/ivacaftor doses in the subgroup withbaseline ppFEV1 <40 (least-squares mean difference versus placebo was 3∙7 and 3.3percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h and lumacaftor 400mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙05] and in the subgroup with baselineppFEV1 ≥40 (3∙3 and 2∙8 percentage points, respectively [p<0∙001]). Similar absoluteimprovements versus placebo in ppFEV1 were observed in subgroups with screening 4ppFEV1 <70 (3∙3 and 3∙3 percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mgq12h and lumacaftor 400 mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙001]) and≥70 (3∙3 and 1∙9 percentage points, respectively [p=0.002] and [p=0∙079]). Increases inBMI and reduction in number of pulmonary exacerbation events were observed in bothLUM/IVA dose groups vs placebo across all lung function subgroups. Treatment wasgenerally well tolerated, although the incidence of some respiratory adverse events washigher with active treatment than with placebo. Interpretation Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy benefits patients homozygousfor Phe508del CFTR who have varying degrees of lung function impairment. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Combinations of ZAP-70, CD38 and IGHV mutational status as predictors of time to first treatment in CLL.

ZAP-70, CD38 and IGHV mutations have all been reported to have prognostic impact in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), both individually and in paired combinations. We aimed to determine whether the combination of all three factors provided more refined prognostic information concerning the treatment-free interval (TFI) from diagnosis. ZAP-70, CD38 and IGHV mutations were evaluated in 142 patients. Combining all three factors, the ZAP-70-/CD38-/Mutated group showed the longest median TFI (62 months, n = 37), ZAP-70+/CD38+/Unmutated cases the shortest (11 months, n = 37) and cases discordant for > or = 1 factor, an intermediate TFI (27 months, n = 68) (p = 0.006). Analysis of discordant cases revealed values that were otherwise masked when measuring single prognostic factors. The presence or absence of cytogenetic abnormalities did not explain the variability among discordant cases. Simultaneous analysis of ZAP-70, CD38 and IGHV mutations in CLL provides more discriminatory prediction of TFI than any factor alone.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.