Hillegass, William B.

Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are a class of drugs that inhibit B-cell receptor (BCR) and are increasingly used in B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasms, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events (AEs), including atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN) and bleeding. These unique AEs are thought to be due to off-target effects. Acalabrutinib, a second-generation BTK inhibitor is characterized by less off-target effects, and is thought to be associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular and other AEs. However, a head to head comparison of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib has not been conducted. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of AEs from prospective clinical trials of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders to compare their safety profile. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception through November 15th 2019. Only full-text articles were included. Other inclusion criteria included prospective trials (single arm or randomized) with ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, or acalabrutinib as investigational agents. Trials investigating BTK inhibitor plus chemotherapy were excluded. When updated results of prospective trials were available, data were extracted from the most recent publication with the longest follow-up. Reports of 17 AEs of interest, including number of events (any grade and grade 3 or higher) were documented. Rate of discontinuation was investigated. Results: Twenty-seven prospective clinical trials, 12 multicenter single-arm, 9 multicenter randomized, 5 single center single-arm, and 1 single center randomized, were included. Data from 29 study arms including 3207 patients were analyzed in 3 groups - ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, and acalabrutinib with augmented Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression implemented in R including packages gemtc and rjags. The most common any grade AEs (>20%) with ibrutinib were diarrhea (46%, 95% CI 36-55%), myalgias/arthralgias (37%, 95%CI 28-46%), fatigue (33%, 95% CI 24-42%), cough (26%, 95% 17-36%), anemia (23%, 95% 15-30%), thrombocytopenia (22%, 95% 15-30%), and pyrexia (21%, 95% 13-30%). The most common any grade AEs with acalabrutinib were headache (37%, 95%CI 26-48%), diarrhea (30%, 95% 20-41%), peripheral edema (21%, 95% 15-28%), fatigue (20%, 95% 11-29%), and myalgias/arthralgias (16%, 95% 8-24%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with ibrutinib were bleeding/bruising (32%, 95% 23-41%), HTN (23%, 95% 15-32%), AF (9%, 95% 3-15%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with acalabrutinib were bleeding/bruising (41%, 95% CI 30-52%), and HTN (6%, 95% 1-11%). The rate of AEs with ibrutinib compared to ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody were similar so the data was pooled. Of all AEs of interest, there was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring ibrutinib for headache (12% vs. 37%), and infections (35% vs 57%). There was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring acalabrutinib for myalgias/arthralgias (16% vs. 37%), anemia (6% vs. 23%), thrombocytopenia (5% vs. 22%), and HTN (6% vs. 23%). After adjusting for median follow-up and age, there was no significant difference in rates of bleeding/bruising and any grade infections between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib. However, there was a significant difference favoring acalabrutinib for any grade HTN (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40) p<0.0001, grade 3 HTN (OR 0.15, 95% 0.08-0.27) p<0.0001, any grade AF (OR 0.35, 95% 0.18-0.66), p=0.0012, grade 3 AF (OR 0.04, 95% 0.01-0.25) p=0.0009, and grade 3 infections (OR 0.62, 95% 0.46-0.85),p=0.003. Conclusions: Acalabrutinib appears to have an overall improved safety profile compared to ibrutinib. This is particularly true for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and cardiovascular AEs, including AF and HTN. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Objective To examine the association of serum inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) and serum lipid measures (low-density lipoprotein (LDL)- and high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol) with risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and ischaemic stroke (IS) among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2005–2010 data from a US commercial health plan. Eligible patients had two or more physician diagnoses of RA during a baseline period of at least 180 days with continuous medical and pharmacy coverage. We computed age-adjusted incidence rates of MI and IS, and used spline regression to assess non-linear associations and Cox-regression to quantify the independent association between the laboratory values and the outcomes. Results We identified 44 418 eligible RA patients (mean age 49 years; 76% women). CRP>10 mg/L compared with <1 mg/L was associated with increased MI risk (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.38). ESR>42 mm/h compared with <14 mm/h was associated with increased risk of MI (HR 2.53; 95% CI 1.48 to 4.31) and IS (HR 2.51; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.75) risk. HDL-cholesterol ≥60 mg/dL (1.6 mmol/L) compared with <40 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) was associated with reduced MI risk (HR 0.37; 0.21 to 0.66). The association between LDL and MI was not linear; the lowest risk was observed among patients with LDL between 70 mg/L (1.8 mmol/L) and 100 mg/L (2.6 mmol/L). We did not observe a significant association between LDL and IS. Conclusions This study provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that RA-related systemic inflammation plays a role in determining cardiovascular risk and a complex relationship between LDL and cardiovascular risk.

Background— Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) is associated with reduced vascular complications; however, previous reports have shown that <2% of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the United States are performed via the radial approach. Our aims were to evaluate temporal trends in r-PCI and compare procedural outcomes between r-PCI and transfemoral PCI. Methods and Results— We conducted a retrospective cohort study from the CathPCI registry (n=2 820 874 procedures from 1381 sites) between January 2007 and September 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural success, using transfemoral PCI as the reference. Outcomes in high-risk subgroups such as age ≥75 years, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were also examined. The proportion of r-PCI procedures increased from 1.2% in quarter 1 2007 to 16.1% in quarter 3 2012 and accounted for 6.3% of total procedures from 2007 to 2012 (n=178 643). After multivariable adjustment, r-PCI use in the studied cohort of patients was associated with lower risk of bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.49–0.54) and lower risk of vascular complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.50) in comparison with transfemoral PCI. The reduction in bleeding and vascular complications was consistent across important subgroups of age, sex, and clinical presentation. Conclusions— There has been increasing adoption of r-PCI in the United States. Transradial PCI now accounts for 1 of 6 PCIs performed in contemporary clinical practice. In comparison with traditional femoral access, transradial PCI is associated with lower vascular and bleeding complication rates.

Background— Health status is a key outcome for comparing treatments, particularly when mortality does not differ significantly. Methods and Results— Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) randomized 2368 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease to (1) prompt revascularization versus medical therapy and (2) insulin sensitization versus insulin provision. Randomization was stratified by the intended method of revascularization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. The Duke Activity Status Index and RAND Energy, Health Distress, and Self-Rated Health scales were assessed at study entry and annually thereafter; linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effect of randomized treatment on these measures. Health status improved significantly from baseline to 1 year ( P <0.001) in each randomized treatment group. Compared with medical therapy, prompt revascularization was associated with significantly greater improvements in Duke Activity Status Index (1.32 points; P <0.001), Energy (1.36 points; P =0.02), and Self-rated Health (1.77 points; P =0.007) but not Health Distress (−0.47; P =0.46). These treatment effects were largely maintained over 4 years of follow-up. The effect of revascularization on the Duke Activity Status Index was significantly larger in the subgroup of patients intended for coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with the subgroup intended for percutaneous coronary intervention. Health status did not differ significantly on any of the 4 measures between the insulin provision and insulin sensitization strategies. Conclusions— Prompt coronary revascularization was associated with small yet statistically significant improvements in health status compared with initial medical therapy among patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00006305.