Toxicity of Asciminib in Real Clinical Practice: Analysis of Side Effects and Cross-Toxicity with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

(1) Background: Despite the prognostic improvements achieved with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a minority of patients still fail TKIs. The recent introduction of asciminib may be a promising option in intolerant patients, as it is a first-in-class inhibitor with a more selective mechanism of action different from the ATP-competitive inhibition that occurs with TKIs. Therefore, our goal was to analyze toxicities shown with asciminib as well as to study cross-toxicity with previous TKIs. (2) Methods: An observational, multicenter, retrospective study was performed with data from 77 patients with CML with therapeutic failure to second-generation TKIs who received asciminib through a managed-access program (MAP) (3) Results: With a median follow-up of 13.7 months, 22 patients (28.5%) discontinued treatment: 32% (7/22) due to intolerance and 45% (10/22) due to resistance. Fifty-five percent of the patients reported adverse effects (AEs) with asciminib and eighteen percent grade 3-4. Most frequent AEs were: fatigue (18%), thrombocytopenia (17%), anemia (12%), and arthralgias (12%). None of the patients experienced cardiovascular events or occlusive arterial disease. Further, 26%, 25%, and 9% of patients required dose adjustment, temporary suspension, or definitive discontinuation of treatment, respectively. Toxicities under asciminib seemed lower than with prior TKIs for anemia, cardiovascular events, pleural/pericardial effusion, diarrhea, and edema. Cross-toxicity risk was statistically significant for thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, fatigue, vomiting, and pancreatitis. (4) Conclusion: Asciminib is a molecule with a good safety profile and with a low rate of AEs. However, despite its new mechanism of action, asciminib presents a risk of cross-toxicity with classical TKIs for some AEs.

Side Effect Patterns in a Crossover Trial of Statin, Placebo, and No Treatment

BACKGROUND

Most people who begin statins abandon them, most commonly because of side effects.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess daily symptom scores on statin, placebo, and no treatment in participants who had abandoned statins.

METHODS

Participants received 12 1-month medication bottles, 4 containing atorvastatin 20 mg, 4 placebo, and 4 empty. We measured daily symptom intensity for each using an app (scale 1-100). We also measured the "nocebo" ratio: the ratio of symptoms induced by taking statin that was also induced by taking placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 60 participants were randomized and 49 completed the 12-month protocol. Mean symptom score was 8.0 (95% CI: 4.7-11.3) in no-tablet months. It was higher in statin months (16.3; 95% CI: 13.0-19.6; P < 0.001), but also in placebo months (15.4; 95% CI: 12.1-18.7; P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 (P = 0.388). The corresponding nocebo ratio was 0.90. In the individual-patient daily data, neither symptom intensity on starting (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.06; P = 0.28) nor extent of symptom relief on stopping (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98-1.05; P = 0.48) distinguished between statin and placebo. Stopping was no more frequent for statin than placebo (P = 0.173), and subsequent symptom relief was similar between statin and placebo. At 6 months after the trial, 30 of 60 (50%) participants were back taking statins.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of symptoms caused by statin tablets were nocebo. Clinicians should not interpret symptom intensity or timing of symptom onset or offset (on starting or stopping statin tablets) as indicating pharmacological causation, because the pattern is identical for placebo. (Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo [SAMSON]; NCT02668016).

Validation of a Brief Screening Instrument for Chemical Intolerance in a Large U.S. National Sample

Background: Chemical intolerance (CI) is characterized by multisystem symptoms triggered by low levels of exposure to xenobiotics including chemicals, foods/food additives, and drugs/medications. Prior prevalence estimates vary from 8–33% worldwide. Clinicians and researchers need a brief, practical screening tool for identifying possible chemical intolerance. This large, population-based study describes the validation of a three-item screening questionnaire, the Brief Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (BREESI), against the international reference standard used for assessing chemical intolerance, the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI). Methods: More than 10,000 people in the U.S. responded to the BREESI and the QEESI in a population-based survey. We calculated the overall prevalence of CI in this sample, as well as by gender, age, and income. Common statistical metrics were used to evaluate the BREESI as a screener for CI against the QEESI. Results: The prevalence estimate for QEESI-defined chemical intolerance in the U.S. was 20.39% (95% CI 19.63–21.15%). The BREESI had 91.26% sensitivity (95% CI: 89.20–93.04%) and 92.89% specificity (95% CI: 91.77–93.90%). The positive likelihood ratio was 12.83 (95% CI: 11.07–14.88), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08–0.12). Logistic regression demonstrates that the predicted probability of CI increased sharply with each increase in the number of BREESI items endorsed (Odds Ratio: 5.3, 95% CI: 4.90–5.75). Conclusions: Chemical intolerance may affect one in five people in the U.S. The BREESI is a new, practical instrument for researchers, clinicians, and epidemiologists. As a screening tool, the BREESI offers a high degree of confidence in case ascertainment. We recommend: screen with the BREESI, confirm with the QEESI.

Latent Tuberculosis Therapy Outcomes in Dialysis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES

Maintenance dialysis patients are at an increased risk for active tuberculosis (TB). In 2012, British Columbia, Canada, began systematically screening maintenance dialysis patients for latent TB infection (LTBI) and treating people with evidence of LTBI when appropriate. We examined LTBI treatment outcomes and compared treatment outcomes before and after rollout of the systematic screening program.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 365 people in British Columbia, Canada, initiating at least 90 days of dialysis from January 1, 2001, to May 31, 2017, and starting LTBI therapy: 290 (79.5%) people in the recent cohort and 75 (20.5%) in the historical cohort. People starting LTBI therapy from January 1, 2012, onward were classified as the recent cohort, whereas people starting LTBI therapy before January 1, 2012, were classified as the historical cohort.

EXPOSURE

Systematic LTBI screening and therapy.

OUTCOMES

Proportion of people who experience grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) or any grade rash and end-of-treatment outcomes.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Outcomes were reported using descriptive statistics. 2-sample test of proportions using χ² distribution was used to test for statistical significance between the recent and historical cohorts.

RESULTS

298 (81.6%) people successfully completed LTBI therapy. The proportion of people experiencing a grade 3 to 4 AE or any grade rash was 21.1%. Most AEs were related to gastrointestinal events, general malaise, or pruritus that resulted in regimen changes. 2 (0.5%) people were hospitalized for AEs related to LTBI therapy. No significant difference was found between the recent and historical cohorts in all outcomes of interest. No grade 5 AEs (deaths) were attributed to LTBI therapy.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective data and generalizability outside low-TB-burden settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a high proportion of people receiving maintenance dialysis can complete LTBI therapy. The rate of grade 3 to 4 AEs was high and associated with frequent medication changes during therapy. LTBI therapy in maintenance dialysis may be safe but requires close monitoring.

Adverse Drug Reactions After Administration of Emodepside/Praziquantel (Profender®) in an MDR1-Mutant Australian Shepherd Dog: Case Report

A 3-year-old male Australian Shepherd was presented with signs of neurological toxicity following the administration of Profender® at the recommended dosage. Unfortunately, the owner had received the product from a veterinarian without any further instructions on fasting as recommended by the manufacturer, so the dog was fed prior to Profender® administration. Neurological toxicity included generalized tremor, agitation and panting, and required hospitalization of the dog. All neurological signs resolved after symptomatic treatment within 24 h and the dog was discharged without the need for further medication. MDR1 genotyping revealed a homozygous mutation of the MDR1 gene, which is normally important to prevent brain penetration of emodepside by an efflux-based transport mechanism at the blood brain barrier. This case indicates that Profender® can lead to serious, but transient neurological toxicity in dogs with homozygous MDR1 mutation even at therapeutic dosage, in particular when fasting recommendations are disregarded. Therefore, the case report highlights both the importance of MDR1 genotyping in predisposed dog breeds as well as strict compliance with fasting recommendations around the time of Profender® administration.

Effect of Hangeshashin-To (Japanese Herbal Medicine Tj-14) on Tolerability of Irinotecan: Propensity Score and Instrumental Variable Analyses

Irinotecan hydrochloride (CPT-11) is used to treat a wide spectrum of malignant tumors. Hangeshashin-to (Japanese herbal medicine TJ-14) is reportedly effective in preventing and controlling diarrhea associated with CPT-11. However, the effect of TJ-14 on tolerability of chemotherapy with CPT-11 has not been fully investigated. We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database to retrospectively identify patients who had received CPT-11 on their first admission with and without TJ-14. Patients who did receive TJ-14 (N = 7092) received CPT-11 more often and in larger doses than those who did not receive TJ-14 (N = 82,019). The incidence rate ratio of CPT-11 administration was 1.34 for frequency (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31–1.38; p < 0.001), and 1.16 for total dose (95% CI, 1.14–1.19; p < 0.001) according to stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting using propensity scores. Instrumental variable analysis showed similar trends. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received TJ-14 than in those who did not. Odds ratios of in-hospital death in patients receiving TJ-14 was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71–0.93; p = 0.002) according to stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting using propensity scores and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.22–0.81; p = 0.009) according to instrumental variable analysis. Our findings indicate that TJ-14 improve the tolerability of CPT-11.