Singh, Siddharth

Statins can decrease hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence, but the magnitude and the predictors of these effects remain unclear. This meta-analysis provides a pooled estimate of the impact of statin use on HCC occurrence. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of the DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was the time-dependent correlation between statin use and HCC incidence expressed as hazard ratio (HR), both crude and adjusted. The crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) for HCC occurrence between statin users and non-users were analyzed. Twenty-five studies with 1,925,964 patients were included. Crude OR for HCC incidence was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.47–0.74), confirmed in adjusted analysis (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.70–0.78). Adjusted HR was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69–0.76). This effect was more pronounced in HBV patients (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36–0.60) and with a cumulative daily dose beyond 365 (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11–0.67). Lipophilic statins were associated with reduced HCC incidence (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39–0.62). Atorvastatin determined the greater magnitude of effect (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28–0.65). This meta-analysis demonstrates the beneficial chemopreventive effect of statins against HCC occurrence. This effect is dose-dependent and more pronounced with lipophilic statins.

Abstract Background Conflicting results have emerged, especially with respect to the impact on overall survival (OS), from trials evaluating lenalidomide maintenance (LM) therapy after induction therapy alone or post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing outcome data from LM trials to evaluate role of lenalidomide as maintenance strategy in MM. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases and abstracts through June 2013 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LM vs. placebo/no maintenance. Single arm studies were excluded. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model for clinical endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), OS, response rate (RR) and adverse events (AEs), including second primary malignancies (SPMs). Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 2. We assessed between-study heterogeneity with the Cochran Q test and quantified its extent with the I2 statistic. Results Overall, five RCTs, with data extractable from four phase III trials (3 publications and 1 abstract) were identified (n= 1935). All studies were RCTs with an adequate randomization. MRC MM XI study was excluded from analyses as survival data are not available. Two placebo controlled trials (IFM 05-02, CALGB 100104) addressed the role of LM post-ASCT, one placebo-controlled trial (MM-015) studied LM therapy in the non-transplant setting and the remaining trial (RV-MM-PI209) had a 2 X 2 design comprising of both ASCT and non-transplant randomized arms followed by a second randomization of LM versus no maintenance. There was no heterogeneity for estimate of PFS results (Cochran Q, p=0.68; I2=0%), but considerable heterogeneity for estimate of OS (Cochran Q, p=0.09; I2= 55%), among the studies. There was significant prolongation of both PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.41–0.58, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95, p=0.013) with LM vs. placebo/no maintenance (Figure 1). Best response during maintenance was reported only in 2 studies and odds of responding (very good partial response or better) were not significantly different with LM (OR 1.28, p=0.3). Grade 3-4 AEs data were available from 3 trials for calculation of pooled OR with LM compared with placebo. We observed a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of SPMs with LM (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31–3.04; p=0.001). Patients on LM were more likely to have grade 3-4 AEs than placebo: neutropenia (OR 4.9, p<0.001), thrombocytopenia (OR 2.7, p<0.001), fatigue (OR 2.3, p=0.01) and venous thromboembolism (OR 3.2, p=0.02). Odds of discontinuing treatment were also significantly higher in patients on lenalidomide (OR 2.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates significant improvement in PFS and modest improvement in OS with LM. There is an increased risk of grade 3-4 adverse effects, including SPMs with LM. Substantial heterogeneity for estimate of OS among protocols is a limitation of this analysis. Lack of uniform access to lenalidomide upon disease progression in the placebo/no maintenance arms of the constituent studies should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate effect estimates for OS in this meta-analysis. OS: Cochran Q p=0.09, I2=55%, substantial heterogeneity PFS: Cochran Q p=0.68, I2=0%, minimal heterogeneity Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Onyx: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab effectiveness estimates immediately after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are limited by use in refractory populations. We aimed to compare treatment patterns and outcomes of vedolizumab in 2 time frames after FDA approval. Methods We used 2 data sets for time trend analysis, an academic multicenter vedolizumab consortium (VICTORY) and the Truven MarketScan database, and 2 time periods, May 2014–June 2015 (Era 1) and July 2015–June 2017 (Era 2). VICTORY cumulative 12-month clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates, and Truven 12-month hospitalization and surgery rates, were compared between Eras 1 and 2 using time-to-event analyses. Results A total of 3661 vedolizumab-treated patients were included (n = 1087 VICTORY, n = 2574 Truven). In both cohorts, CD and UC patients treated during Era 2 were more likely to be biologic naïve. Compared with Era 1, Era 2 CD patients in the VICTORY consortium had higher rates of clinical remission (31% vs 40%, P = 0.03) and mucosal healing (42% vs 58%, P < 0.01). These trends were not observed for UC. In the Truven database, UC patients treated during Era 2 had lower rates of inflammatory bowel disease–related hospitalization (22.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001) and surgery (17.2% vs 9.4%, P = 0.008), which was not observed for CD. Conclusion Since FDA approval, remission and mucosal healing rates have increased for vedolizumab-treated CD patients, and vedolizumab-treated UC patients have had fewer hospitalizations and surgeries. This is likely due to differences between patient populations treated immediately after drug approval and those treated later.

ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non‐TNFi biologics, and conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsUsing a systematic search through May 8, 2018, we included 14 observational studies in adults with RA treated with TNFi, non‐TNFi biologics, tofacitinib, or csDMARDs, reporting the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or stroke. Only studies reporting active comparators were included. We performed random effects meta‐analysis and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsAs compared to TNFi, tocilizumab was associated with a decreased risk of MACE (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.34–1.00]), whereas csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of MACE (csDMARDs including methotrexate OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.09–1.93]; without methotrexate OR 2.57 [95% CI 1.32–5.00]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%); there was no difference in risk of MACE between abatacept and TNFi (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.71–1.11]), or between tocilizumab and abatacept (OR 0.81 [0.57–1.16]). Based on 11 cohorts (n = 135,053 patients), as compared to TNFi, csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01–1.36]); there was no difference in risk of stroke between different biologics (tocilizumab versus TNFi OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.59–1.61]; abatacept versus TNFi OR 1.08 [0.86–1.34]; tocilizumab versus abatacept OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.39–1.38]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). No comparative studies on cardiovascular risk with tofacitinib were identified.ConclusionBased on meta‐analysis, as compared to TNFi, tocilizumab may be associated with a reduced risk of MACE, whereas csDMARDs may be associated with an increased risk of MACE and stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Histologic remission is a potentially valuable means of assessing disease activity and treatment response in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the efficacy of existing therapies to achieve this outcome is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of histologic outcomes in UC randomized controlled trials and examined the relationship between histologic and endoscopic outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Register were searched for randomized controlled trials of aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, biologics, and small molecules. Histologic and endoscopic remission and response data were independently extracted and pooled using binomial–normal random-effect or fixed-effect models. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Univariable and multivariable random-effect meta-regression models examined factors associated with histologic remission. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies (68 induction and 7 maintenance) were identified. Topical aminosalicylate enemas [37.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 29.0–46.3] and suppositories (44.9%, 95% CI, 28.9–62.3) had the highest induction of histologic remission rates. Aminosalicylate enemas (RR = 4.14, 95% CI, 2.35–7.31), aminosalicylate suppositories (RR = 3.94, 95% CI, 1.26–12.32), and budesonide multimatrix (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.08–1.99) had higher histologic remission rates than placebo. Data were lacking for biologics and immunosuppressives. The pooled histologic remission rate for placebo in induction studies was 10.4% (95% CI, 7.1–15.2). Histologic and endoscopic remission correlated strongly ( r = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50–0.78). In multivariate analysis of placebo-arm data, less severe clinical disease activity and corticosteroid use were associated with higher histologic remission rates. Similarly, mild clinical disease activity was associated with higher histologic remission rates when active-arm data were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic remission rates for current UC treatments ranged from 15.0% to 44.9% according to drug class and patient population with the highest rates observed for topical aminosalicylates. Placebo remission rates were low with relatively narrow CIs. These data provide benchmarks to inform future trial design. Histologic remission is a potential treatment target in clinical practice.