Citations

Abstract Background Posaconazole immediate release (IR) suspension is the standard product for enteral feeding tube (EFT) administration but has erratic pharmacokinetic behavior and results in sub satisfactory concentrations. Limited evidence suggests that the posaconazole oral delayed-release (DR) tablets may be crushed. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults who received EFT administration of posaconazole IR suspension or crushed DR tablets between 2018 and 2024. Patients were eligible if they had at least one serum concentration drawn ≥5 days after posaconazole initiation. The primary outcome was the attainment of therapeutic (≥700ng/mL for prophylaxis, ≥1,000ng/mL for treatment) serum concentration within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included time to therapeutic serum concentration, adverse drug effects, and frequency of clogged EFT. Multivariable cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the relationship between posaconazole formulation and attainment of therapeutic concentrations while adjusting for confounding variables. Results Of the included patients, 100 received DR tablets and 48 received IR suspension. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or severity of illness. Among DR tablet and IR suspension recipients, 59% and 23% achieved therapeutic concentrations, respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, drug interactions, posaconazole indication, malabsorptive gastrointestinal conditions, IR suspension was significantly less likely than crushed DR tablets to achieve therapeutic posaconazole concentrations within 30-days (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.71; p < 0.003). The crushed DR tablet group required less total daily posaconazole to achieve therapeutic concentrations (400 vs 600 mg/day, p = 0.003). Clogged EFTs were more frequent in the crushed DR tablet group (27% vs 10%, p = 0.022), while no differences were observed in the occurrence of hepatotoxicity or hypokalemia. Conclusion Administration of crushed posaconazole DR tablets via EFT is more likely to attain therapeutic concentrations compared to IR suspension. The optimal technique for administering crushed DR tablets to prevent EFT complications warrants investigation. Disclosures Patrick M. Wieruszewski, PharmD, FCCM, Wolters Kluwer/UpToDate: Advisor/Consultant

Abstract Background Posaconazole immediate release (IR) suspension is the standard product for enteral feeding tube (EFT) administration but has erratic pharmacokinetic behaviour, often resulting in subtherapeutic concentrations. Limited evidence suggests that posaconazole oral delayed-release (DR) tablets may be crushed. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults who received EFT administration of posaconazole IR suspension or crushed DR tablets between 2018 and 2024. Patients were eligible if they had at least one serum drug concentration drawn ≥5 days after posaconazole initiation. The primary outcome was attainment of therapeutic drug concentrations. Secondary outcomes included time to therapeutic serum concentration, adverse drug events, and frequency of occluded EFT. Results Of the included patients, 48 received IR suspension and 100 received DR tablets. Baseline characteristics and severity of illnesses were well balanced. Among IR suspension and crushed DR tablet recipients, 39% and 80% achieved therapeutic concentrations, respectively (P = 0.002). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, drug interactions, posaconazole indication and malabsorptive conditions, crushed DR tablets were significantly more likely than IR suspension to achieve therapeutic posaconazole concentrations within 30 days (HR 5.22, 95% CI 2.35–11.61). Occluded EFTs were more frequent among crushed DR tablet recipients (27% versus 10%, P = 0.022), while no differences were observed in the occurrence of hepatotoxicity or hypokalaemia. Conclusions With EFT administration, crushed posaconazole DR tablets were associated with a greater likelihood of achieving therapeutic concentrations compared with IR suspension. The optimal technique for administering crushed DR tablets to prevent EFT complications warrants investigation.

Abstract Background:Evorpacept (EVO) is a high affinity CD47-blocking fusion protein with an inactive human immunoglobulin Fc region designed to enhance the activity of other anti-neoplastic therapies with minimal additional toxicity. Here, we present final phase 1 results from the ASPEN-02 study. Methods:ASPEN-02 is an open-label, multicenter phase 1/2 study designed to evaluate the safety and activity of EVO in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in subjects with newly diagnosed (ND) higher-risk (HR) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) MDS. Adult subjects with ND HR (IPSS-R > 3.5) or R/R MDS were enrolled into phase 1 cohorts receiving escalating doses of EVO (20 mg/kg Q2W, 30 mg/kg Q2W, and 60 mg/kg Q4W) combined with AZA (75 mg/m2 IV/SC x 7d) in a 28-day treatment cycle. A phase 1 dose expansion portion enrolled adults with ND HR MDS into two dosing cohorts determined to be safe at EVO 40 mg/kg Q4W and 60 mg/kg Q4W. This clinical trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04417517. Results: As of June 2, 2023, 65 subjects were treated in the phase 1 portion, including 13 subjects with R/R MDS [EVO doses of 20 mg/kg Q2W (n=1) or 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=12)], and 52 subjects with ND HR MDS [EVO doses of 40 mg/kg Q4W (n=23) and 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=29)]. Of 52 ND HRMDS subjects, 9 (17.3%) had therapy-related MDS. Multi-hit TP53 mutations were present at baseline in 2/13 (15.4%) R/R MDS and 3/52 (5.8%) ND HR MDS patients. 13/13 (100%) R/R MDS patients had received prior hypomethylating agents or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Median age was 70 (range 24 - 88) years, and baseline ECOG scores were 0 (n=27, 41.5%), 1 (n=31, 47.7%), or 2 (n=7, 10.8%). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. Treatment-emergent AEs and treatment-related AEs for EVO were reported in 65/65 (100%) and 35/65 (53.8%) subjects respectively; discontinuation, however, was infrequent. Seven (10.8%) subjects experienced a serious adverse event related to EVO. There were no EVO-related deaths on study. Preliminary PK indicated dose-proportional pharmacokinetics consistent with prior studies. Objective response [complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), marrow CR (mCR), hematologic improvement (HI)], per modified International Working Group 2006 criteria, was observed in 19/52 (36.5%) ND HR [CR=8, mCR=9, HI=2] and 2/13 (15.4%) R/R [mCR=2] MDS subjects. Conclusion:The myeloid checkpoint inhibitor EVO was well tolerated in combination with AZA with an initial safety and activity profile comparable to that of historical AZA monotherapy. Additional updated data will be provided at the time of presentation. Citation Format: Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Bart L. Scott, Ashwin Kishtagari, Srinivasa R. Sanikommu, Aref Al-Kali, Je-Hwan Lee, Juan M. Bergua Burgues, Maria Diez-Campelo, Harry P. Erba, Carmen Garcia-Hernandez, Guillermo Sanz Santillana, Casey O'Connell, Jun-Ho Jang, Dong-Yeop Shin, Hamid Sayar, Mayank Rao, Richard S. Schwartz, Grace An, Feng Jin, Alison J. Forgie, Athanasios C. Tsiatis, Jessica K. Altman. Phase 1 study of azacitidine in combination with evorpacept for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT060.

Abstract Ruxolitinib reduces spleen volume, improves symptoms, and increases survival in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis. However, suboptimal response may occur, potentially because of signaling via the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B pathway. This phase 2 study evaluated dosing, efficacy, and safety of add-on PI3Kδ inhibitor parsaclisib for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis with suboptimal response to ruxolitinib. Eligible patients remained on a stable ruxolitinib dose and received add-on parsaclisib 10 or 20 mg, once daily for 8 weeks, and once weekly thereafter (daily-to-weekly dosing; n = 32); or parsaclisib 5 or 20 mg, once daily for 8 weeks, then 5 mg once daily thereafter (all-daily dosing; n = 42). Proportion of patients achieving a ≥10% decrease in spleen volume at 12 weeks was 28% for daily-to-weekly dosing and 59.5% for all-daily dosing. Proportions of patients achieving ≥50% decrease at week 12 in Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form and Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form symptom scores were 14% and 18% for daily-to-weekly dosing, and 28% and 32% for all-daily dosing, respectively. Most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (23%), diarrhea (22%), abdominal pain and fatigue (each 19%), and cough and dyspnea (each 18%). New-onset grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia were observed in 19% of patients, each dosed daily-to-weekly, and in 26% and 7% of patients dosed all-daily, respectively, managed with dose interruptions. Hemoglobin levels remained steady. The addition of parsaclisib to stable-dose ruxolitinib can reduce splenomegaly and improve symptoms, with manageable toxicity in patients with myelofibrosis with suboptimal response to ruxolitinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02718300.

Background: Oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) is a fixed dose combination of decitabine (35 mg) and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (100 mg) given once daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle producing pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure equivalent to the standard intravenous (IV) decitabine regimen of 20 mg/m 2 daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle. This was demonstrated in the pivotal ASCERTAIN study (Garcia-Manero, et al, ASH 2019) as it provided a PK bridge to existing decitabine data and demonstrated median OS was 31.7 mo. (Savona,et al. Intl. MDSF International Congress on MDS, 2021). Subjects were initially classified by the International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) for historical reasons, however IPSS-R and IPSS-M are enhancements to IPSS that provide dynamic risk assessment for predicting clinical outcomes in MDS. Here, the objective was to re-classify the MDS subjects enrolled on the ASCERTAIN study by IPSS-R and IPSS-M and measure the impact of informing patient outcomes based on re-calculated risk assessment. Methods: One hundred thirty-three subjects with MDS/CMML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) were enrolled in ASCERTAIN and were randomly assigned either IV decitabine for cycle 1 and oral decitabine/cedazuridine for cycle 2 or the opposite treatment sequence. All subjects continuing beyond cycle 2 received oral decitabine/cedazuridine for all subsequent cycles until treatment discontinuation for disease progression, toxicity, patient's decision, or HSCT. Whole blood collected prior to treatment was used for DNA isolation and molecular abnormalities identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematologic malignancy panel of 179 genes including all genes commonly mutated in MDS. In the initial analysis of clinical outcomes, subjects were classified by IPSS with response assessment by IWG 2006 IPSS low and Int-1 risk levels were categorized as lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), whereas IPSS Int-2 and high-risk categories were categorized as higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Subjects with sufficient data based on (e.g., available heme parameters, cytogenetics, NGS etc.) were reclassified by IPSS-R and IPSS-M. Subjects with IPSS-R score of ≤3.5 or IPSS-M of either very low, low, or moderate low were categorized as LR-MDS. Similarly subjects with IPSS-R score of >3.5 or an IPSS-M categorization of either moderate high, high, or very high were categorized as HR-MDS. Reclassified subjects were reassessed for CR (Complete Response), OS, and LFS and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used to describe the level of agreement between each scale and outcomes. Results: Based on the available data, the number of MDS subjects in the different risk classifications were the following: IPSS: 117, IPSS-R: 104, and IPSS-M: 105. Thirteen and 12 subjects on the IPSS could not be reclassified in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, respectively, including 5 Int-1 and 2 low-risk MDS cases. CMML subjects were excluded from these analyses. Re-classification generally resulted in the upgrade of the subjects from LR-MDS to HR-MDS (Fig. 1). Thirty-one (26.5%) subjects from IPSS were reallocated in the IPSS-R to different risk categories; 3 (9.7%) were downgraded and 28 (90.3%) were upgraded. Similarly on reclassification with IPSS-M 34 (32.4%) of the patients reclassified; 5 (14.8%) were downgraded and 29 (85.3%) were upgraded. For IPSS LR-MDS, 23.2% of patients achieved CR, and 22.9% in the IPSS HR-MDS. Similarly, 21.6% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-R LR-MDS, and 23.9% in the IPSS-R HR-MDS; 26.3% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-M LR-MDS, and 20.9% in the IPSS-M HR-MDS. The c-index for the IPSS was .64 (OS) and .67 (LFS), IPSS-R was .70 (OS) and .71 (LFS), and .75 (OS) and .78 (LFS) for the IPSS-M (Table1). Conclusion: Reclassification from IPSS to IPSS-R or IPSS-M upgraded multiple subjects from a LR to a HR category, describing the ASCERTAIN patient population as a majority higher risk population with worse prognosis than previously assumed based on the IPSS. The efficacy as measured by the CR rates did not change when the LR and HR categories were defined by the different risk stratification systems. In contrast, the c-index improves with migration from IPSS to IPSS-R to IPSS-M, indicating an increased discriminatory ability of IPSS-M score in comparison to IPSS and IPSS-R, to predict patient outcomes.

PURPOSE Targeting the BCL-XL pathway has demonstrated the ability to overcome Janus kinase inhibitor resistance in preclinical models. This phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of adding BCL-XL/BCL-2 inhibitor navitoclax to ruxolitinib therapy in patients with myelofibrosis with progression or suboptimal response to ruxolitinib monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03222609 ). METHODS Thirty-four adult patients with intermediate-/high-risk myelofibrosis who had progression or suboptimal response on stable ruxolitinib dose (≥ 10 mg twice daily) were administered navitoclax at 50 mg once daily starting dose, followed by escalation to a maximum of 300 mg once daily in once in weekly increments (if platelets were ≥ 75 × 109/L). The primary end point was ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary end points included ≥ 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50) from baseline at week 24, hemoglobin improvement, change in bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) grade, and safety. RESULTS High molecular risk mutations were identified in 58% of patients, and 52% harbored ≥ 3 mutations. SVR35 was achieved by 26.5% of patients at week 24, and by 41%, at any time on study, with an estimated median duration of SVR35 of 13.8 months. TSS50 was achieved by 30% (6 of 20) of patients at week 24, and BMF improved by 1-2 grades in 33% (11 of 33) of evaluable patients. Anemia response was achieved by 64% (7 of 11), including one patient with baseline transfusion dependence. Median overall survival was not reached with a median follow-up of 21.6 months. The most common adverse event was reversible thrombocytopenia without clinically significant bleeding (88%). CONCLUSION The addition of navitoclax to ruxolitinib in patients with persistent or progressive myelofibrosis resulted in durable SVR35, improved TSS, hemoglobin response, and BMF. Further investigation is underway to qualify the potential for disease modification.