Injectable Hypomethylating Agents for Management of Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Patients' Perspectives on Treatment

Development of the treatment preference in myelodysplasia questionnaire for clinicians, carers, and patients

This study reports the development activities for the Treatment Preference Myelodysplasia Questionnaires (TPMQ) for clinicians (mTPMQ), carers (cTPMQ), and patients (pTPMQ). These tools are intended to evaluate treatment preferences for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional qualitative interview study consisting of interviews with clinicians, patients, and those caring for patients with MDS. All participants were located in Australia and data were collected from qualitative mixed-method interviews composed of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing related to initial drafts of the questionnaires. Fifteen individuals participated in interviews (five from each group). Based on the concept elicitation portion of interviews, concepts of importance were classified and reasons for treatment preference were documented. From cognitive debriefing, the questionnaires were generally deemed to be clear and easy to understand. Participant input from both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing portions was used to revise initial drafts of the questionnaires. The mTPMQ, cTPMQ, and pTPMQ were developed with direct input from clinicians, patients, and caregivers to assess the key concepts of interest related to the preference for the treatment of MDS and are ready to be used and evaluated further in clinical trials.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine.

METHODS

We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]).

INTERPRETATION

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

FUNDING

Astex Pharmaceuticals.

The history of oral decitabine/cedazuridine and its potential role in acute myeloid leukemia

Decitabine, a member of the 5-azanucleosides, has a dose-dependent mechanism of action in vitro: termination of DNA replication at high doses, and inhibition of DNA methyltransferase at low doses. The alteration of DNA methylation patterns by low-dose decitabine is hypothesized to upregulate genes, which promote myeloblast differentiation. In a phase III clinical trial, low-dose decitabine achieved a superior overall response rate (ORR) when compared with 'treatment choice' [consisting of low-dose cytarabine (80%) and supportive care (20%)] as a frontline treatment for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Despite an improved ORR, the median overall survival (OS) for elderly patients with AML was poor, <1 year. In turn, venetoclax was added to low-dose decitabine, the combination of which significantly improved the ORR and median OS in elderly patients with AML. Currently, hypomethylating agents are being combined with other novel therapies as investigational strategies for elderly and unfit patients with AML. They are also being evaluated as components of maintenance therapy in patients achieving remission. An oral formulation of decitabine has been developed which relies on the concomitant use of oral cedazuridine to protect against first pass metabolism. This oral formulation, which has been approved in myelodysplastic syndrome, is intended to increase convenience of use and therefore compliance in patients. This review characterizes the evolution of decitabine, its oral formulation, and its future in the treatment of AML.

Treatment satisfaction with molidustat in CKD-related anemia in non-dialysis patients: a post-hoc analysis of two clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are the standard treatment for patients with renal anemia to increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels and reduce the need for blood transfusions. However, treatments targeting high Hb levels require high doses of ESAs administered intravenously, which is associated with an elevated risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Furthermore, there have been some problems such as hemoglobin variability and low achievement of target hemoglobin due to the shorter half-lives of ESAs. Consequently, erythropoietin-promoting medications, such as hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase (HIF-PH) inhibitors, have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medicine version II (TSQM-II) domain scores relative to baseline in each trial, to assess patient satisfaction with molidustat versus darbepoetin alfa.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of two clinical trials compared treatment satisfaction with an HIF-PH inhibitor, molidustat, versus a standard ESA, darbepoetin alfa, as part of therapy in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) and renal anemia.

RESULTS

Exploratory outcome data using the TSQM-II showed that both arms in both trials had enhanced treatment satisfaction over the course of the study period, as well as improvements in most TSQM-II domains at week 24 of treatment. Molidustat was associated with convenience domain scores at multiple time points depending on the trial. More patients were highly satisfied with the convenience of molidustat than that of darbepoetin alfa. Patients treated with molidustat had increased global satisfaction domain scores compared with those treated with darbepoetin alfa; however, the differences in global satisfaction domain scores were not significant.

CONCLUSION

These patient-reported satisfaction outcomes support the use of molidustat as a patient-centered treatment option for CKD-related anemia.

REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03350321 (November 22, 2017).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03350347 (November 22, 2017).

Oral therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and acute myeloid leukemia: a revolution in progress

INTRODUCTION

Patients with myeloid neoplasms such as myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are generally older, and many are not eligible for curative intent intensive therapies and/or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. While lower intensity, hypomethylating agent (HMA)-based therapies such as azacitidine+venetoclax have improved patient outcomes significantly, responses are not durable, and most patients die from disease-related complications. The approvals of oral HMAs such as cedazuridine-decitabine (C-DEC) and oral azacitidine (CC-486) have kindled the hope that myeloid malignancies may soon be treated with total oral therapy.

AREAS COVERED

We review all-oral therapies including the approvals of C-DEC and CC-486 in MDS and AML, respectively, in addition to emerging all-oral therapies, both monotherapy and combination, in higher-risk (HR) MDS and AML.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral HMAs have the potential to be a convenient and efficacy-equivalent treatment option for patients with HR-MDS or AML and improve their quality of life by reducing clinic visits for medication administration. Total-oral therapy combinations, largely including an oral HMA 'backbone,' are in the early phases of clinical development, and it is our hope that well-designed trials employing these agents may soon allow the identification of optimal regimens that deliver effective disease-directed therapy with good tolerability.

Exploring preferences of different modes of administration of hypomethylating agent treatments among patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Introduction

About half of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) are not eligible for Standard Induction Chemotherapy (SIC). Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs) intravenously (IV) or subcutaneously (SC) in a clinical setting are typically offered as an alternative. However, injectable HMAs may be burdensome for patients given the frequent hospital visits and side effects. This study explored patient treatment preferences for different modes of administration (MOA) and the relative importance of treatment-related characteristics that influence treatment decisions.

Methods

Semi-structured 1:1 interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with AML in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, who are not eligible for SIC, had experience with HMAs or were scheduled to be treated with HMAs. After discussing their experience of living with AML and its treatments, patients were presented with hypothetical treatment scenarios to explore their preferences, and a ranking exercise to assess the relative importance of treatment characteristics that influence their treatment-decisions for AML.

Results

Most patients reported an overall preference for oral administration over parenteral routes (71%), mostly due to convenience. Those preferring IV or SC routes (24%) reasoned with faster speed of action and onsite monitoring. When presented with a hypothetical situation of a patient having to choose between two AML treatments that were identical except for their MOA, the majority preferred the oral route (76%). Regarding treatment characteristics that influence treatment decisions, patients most frequently reported efficacy (86%) and side effects (62%) as important, followed by mode of administration (29%), daily life impacts (24%) and location of treatment (hospital versus home) (14%). However, only efficacy and side effects were rated as number one deciding factors (67% and 19%, respectively). Patients most frequently rated dosing regimen (33%) as least important.

Conclusion

The insights gained from this study may help support patients with AML who are receiving HMA treatment instead of SIC. A potential oral HMA with similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to injectable HMAs could influence treatment decisions. Furthermore, an oral HMA treatment might decrease the burden of parenteral therapies and improve patients' overall quality of life. However, the extent of influence MOA has on treatment decisions requires further investigation.

Treatment patterns in older patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: A population-based analysis reflecting the real world

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is complex, options are limited, and insight into consecutive treatments is lacking. We performed this study to assess the outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with MDS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational population-based study was performed using the HemoBase registry. Treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS

In 144 of 280 (51.4%) patients with MDS >50 years, first-line treatment was initiated. The median age was 75.1 years (range: 52.6-92.0); the majority were male (72.2%). Hypomethylating agents (HMA), intensive chemotherapy, lenalidomide, and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were given as first-line treatment to 31.1% (n = 45), 12.5% (n = 18), 2.8% (n = 4), and 53.5% (n = 77) of the population, respectively. The median treatment duration was 5.8 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.1-10.4) for HMA, 1.7 months (95%CI: 0.9-2.6) for intensive chemotherapy, 10.8 months (95%CI: 4.7-17.0) for lenalidomide, and 14.8 months (95%CI: 11.4-18.1) for ESA. Consecutive treatments were given to 27.2% of patients. The main reasons for first-line treatment discontinuation were treatment failure (45.8%), toxicity (6.9%), or death (20.1%). Median OS after termination of the initial, second, and third treatment was 5.8 months (95%CI: 3.2-8.5), 9.3 months (95%CI: 0.0-19.6), and 1.0 months (95%CI: 0.0-5.1), respectively.

DISCUSSION

This study shows the treatment outcomes in a real-world population of older patients with MDS. Treatment duration and median OS after treatment discontinuation were relatively limited. There is still an urgent need for new treatment options, strategies to further optimize duration of existing treatments, and communication of realistic treatment goals and expectations, especially for older, higher-risk patients with MDS with a poor prognosis.

Patients with AML-MRC benefit from decitabine in combination with low-dose G-CSF, cytarabine and aclarubicin: A single center cohort study

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) are insensitive to conventional chemotherapy and, therefore, have a poor prognosis. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of low-dose decitabine in combination with small-dose CAG regimen (D-CAG regimen) in treating AML-MRC, a total of 80 patients with newly diagnosed AML-MRC from September 2015 to January 2020 in our center were included in the study. Amongst these patients, 43 and 37 patients received two courses of the D-CAG and CAG regimens, respectively. The complete remission (CR) and complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) rate in the D-CAG group was higher than that of the CAG group (62.2% vs. 48.8%, P = 0.013). Among patients with less than 9 months of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) history and poor karyotypes, the (CR+CRi) rate of the D-CAG group was statistically higher than that of the CAG group. Except for patients receiving hematopoietic cell transplantation, among patients with less than 9 months of MDS history, the D-CAG group showed a better probability of overall survival than the CAG group did. In conclusion, patients with AML-MRC may benefit from the D-CAG regimen as an induction therapy, especially patients with less than 9 months of MDS history or with poor karyotypes.

Patient Preferences for Benefits, Risks, and Administration Route of Hypomethylating Agents in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Therapy with infused or injected hypomethylating agents (HMAs) may lead to higher treatment administration burden (ie, local reaction, visit frequency and duration) vs. oral HMAs.   OBJECTIVES: To reveal preferences of US and Canadian patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for HMAs' benefits, risks, and administration burden through an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Choice of DCE attributes and survey development were informed by literature review and interviews with clinicians, MDS patients, and caregivers serving as patient proxies, and patient advocacy groups (PAGs) representatives, including from AAMAC, AAMDS, and MDSF. DCE choice tasks were analyzed using random parameter logit models. Survey patients were recruited by the PAGs via their networks. To understand key preference drivers and how much patients were willing to trade between attributes, we calculated each attribute's relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-four respondents (including 158 patients; mean age, 67.2 years; male, 50.5%; White, 50.5%; US residents, 88%) completed the survey. MDS risk was low (34.8%), high (30.9%), or unknown (34.2%). RAI (in decreasing order) was as follows: risk of AML (40%), fatigue level (33%), number of visits (12%), mode of administration (6%), visit duration (5%), and administration frequency (4%). Assuming the same risk of AML transformation or level of fatigue, most respondents (76.6%) were predicted to switch to an oral pill if it were available to them.

CONCLUSION

Given equivalent effectiveness across HMAs, patients' preferences for HMA administration method should be considered in treatment decision-making to minimize burden and facilitate adherence.