Citations

4016 Background: No standard treatment options are available for patients with advanced BC who fail gemcitabine/platinum therapy. The rationale for evaluation of trametinib was based on the presence of MAPK alterations and on earlier promising results with other MEK inhibitors in BC. Methods: Pts with histologically proven BC who progressed on gemcitabine/platinum were randomized to trametinib (2mg qd) (Arm A) vs infusional 5FU at 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours or capecitabine (1000 mg/m2PO days 1-14 BID) (Arm B). Patients were stratified by planned chemotherapy 5FU/LV vs capecitabine; and disease site: cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). 80 eligible patients (40 for each arm) were needed to detect an improvement in median OS from 5 months to 8.25 months (1.65 HR). A planned interim futility analysis of objective response was performed on the first 14 pts registered to the trametinib arm. Results: The study was stopped early based on the lack of measurable response in the trametinib arm. 53 pts were randomized (27 pts in Arm A vs 26 pts in Arm B). Median age was 62 years and the primary sites of tumor were cholangiocarcinoma (77%) and gallbladder (23%). Median OS was 4.3 months (95% CI 3.1-5.1) for Arm A, and 8.0 months (95% CI 3.2-14.6) for Arm B with a HR of 2.02 (95% CI 1.01-4.03, p=0.05). The median PFS was 1.3 months (95% CI 1.2-1.5) for arm A and 2.8 months (95% CI 1.4-6.9) for arm B with a HR of 2.95 (95% CI 1.38-6.30, p=0.01). Overall RR was 8% (95% CI 0%, 19%) in Arm A vs 10% (95% CI 0%, 23%) in Arm B (p>0.99), and 8% vs 45% had stable disease. Eight pts in Arm A experienced treatment-related ≥ grade 3 toxicities, including one death due to vomiting/dehydration. Seven pts in Arm B experienced treatment-related grade 3 toxicities; no higher grade toxicities were reported. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomized study of a targeted agent versus chemotherapy for the second line treatment of BC. In this unselected population, the lack of response to trametinib resulted in early closure. The PFS and OS for trametinib were inferior to 5FU. Clinical trial information: 02042443.

Background The comparative effects of statins, ezetimibe with or without statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors remain unassessed. Design Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment groups. Methods Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception – September 2017). Results In network meta-analysis of 189,116 patients, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the best treatment for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (Surface Under Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA), 85%), myocardial infarction (SUCRA, 84%) and stroke (SUCRA, 80%). PCSK9 inhibitors reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with ezetimibe + statin (odds ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.55–0.95; Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria: moderate), statin (OR: 0.78; 95% CrI: 0.62–0.97; GRADE: moderate) and placebo (OR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.49–0.79; GRADE: high). The PCSK9 inhibitors were consistently superior to groups for major adverse cardiovascular event reduction in secondary prevention trials (SUCRA, 95%). Statins had the highest probability of having lowest rates of all-cause mortality (SUCRA, 82%) and cardiovascular mortality (SUCRA, 84%). Compared with placebo, statins reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CrI: 0.83–0.94; GRADE: moderate) and cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.84; 95% CrI: 0.77–0.90; GRADE: high). For cardiovascular mortality, PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the second best treatment (SUCRA, 78%) followed by ezetimibe + statin (SUCRA, 50%). Conclusion PCSK9 inhibitors were ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and stroke, without having major safety concerns. Statins were ranked as the most effective therapy for reducing mortality.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the factors associated with early readmissions following atrial flutter (AFL) ablation is critical to reduce the cost and improving the quality of life in AFL patients.MethodThe study cohort was derived from the national readmission database 2013–2014. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnosis code 427.32 and procedure code 37.34 were used to identify AFL and catheter ablation, respectively. The primary and secondary outcomes were 90‐day readmission and complications including in‐hospital mortality. Cox proportional regression and hierarchical logistic regression were used to generate the predictors of primary and secondary outcomes respectively. Readmission causes were identified by ICD‐9‐CM code in primary diagnosis field of readmissions.ResultReadmission rate of 18.19% (n = 1,010 with 1,396 readmissions) was noted among AFL patients (n = 5552). Common etiologies for readmission were heart failure (12.23%), atrial fibrillation (11.13%), atrial flutter (8.93%), respiratory complications (9.42%), infections (7.4%), bleeding (7.39%, including GI bleed–4.09% and intracranial bleed–0.79%) and stroke/TIA (1.89%). Multivariate predictors of 90‐day readmission (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, P value) were preexisting heart failure (1.30, 1.13–1.49, P < 0.001), chronic pulmonary disease (1.37, 1.18–1.58, P < 0.001), anemia (1.23, 1.02–1.49, P = 0.035), malignancy (1.87, 1.40–2.49, P < 0.001), weekend admission compared to weekday admission (1.23, 1.02–1.47, P = 0.029), and length of stay (LOS) ≥5 days (1.39, 1.16–1.65, P < 0.001). Note that 50% of readmissions happened within 30 days of discharge.ConclusionCardiac etiologies remain the most common reason for the readmission after AFL ablation. Identifying high risk patients, careful discharge planning, and close follow‐up postdischarge can potentially reduce readmission rates in AFL ablation patients.

Purpose Treatment options for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) remain limited. This trial assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) of bevacizumab or interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) added to octreotide among patients with advanced NETs. Patients and Methods Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S0518, a phase III study conducted in a US cooperative group system, enrolled patients with advanced grades 1 and 2 NETs with progressive disease or other poor prognostic features. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with octreotide LAR 20 mg every 21 days with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days or 5 million units of IFN-α-2b three times per week. The primary end point was centrally assessed PFS. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00569127. Results A total of 427 patients was enrolled, of whom 214 were allocated to bevacizumab and 213 to IFN-α-2b. The median PFS by central review was 16.6 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 19.6 months) in the bevacizumab arm and was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 18.6 months) in the IFN arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18; P = .55). By site review, the median PFS times were 15.4 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.2 months) for bevacizumab and 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.5 to 14.4 months) for interferon (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .33). Time to treatment failure was longer with bevacizumab than with IFN (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P = .003). Confirmed radiologic response rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) for bevacizumab and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for IFN. Common adverse events with bevacizumab and octreotide included hypertension (32%), proteinuria (9%), and fatigue (7%); with IFN and octreotide, they included fatigue (27%), neutropenia (12%), and nausea (6%). Conclusion No significant differences in PFS were observed between the bevacizumab and IFN arms, which suggests that these agents have similar antitumor activity among patients with advanced NETs.