Late hemorrhagic disease of the newborn (HDN) presents 0.5-6 months after birth with mucocutaneous and intracranial bleeding. We describe here two cases of late HDN in infants who received vitamin K. The first case is a previously healthy breastfed male who received one dose of oral vitamin K at birth and developed an intracranial hemorrhage 5 weeks later. He was treated with intravenous vitamin K and recombinant factor VIIa prior to emergent craniectomy. An unrelated infant presented at 5 months of age with diarrhea and easy bruising despite IM vitamin K at birth. These cases illustrate the morbidity associated with late HDN.
Introduction: Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is among the most common malignancies in adolescents and young adults. High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are standard for most patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease. Current salvage therapies are associated with excessive toxicity and variable complete remission rates (Harker-Murray et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 2014). Novel regimens that increase remission rates and reduce late effects of therapy are needed, particularly for young patients. Nivolumab (nivo) is a fully human IgG4 anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate. In a phase 1/2 study of adults with R/R cHL, the combination of nivo + BV was well tolerated, with a high response rate as first salvage regimen (Herrera et al, Blood 2018). CheckMate 744 (AHOD1721; NCT02927769) is the first risk-stratified, response-adapted, phase 2 study of nivo + BV, followed by BV + bendamustine for suboptimal response, in children, adolescents, and young adults with R/R cHL with low or standard risk of relapse. Here we report preliminary, investigator (INV)-assessed results from the standard-risk (R2) cohort. Methods: This open-label study enrolled patients aged 5-30 years with pathologically confirmed cHL, excluding nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL, after failure/non-response to first-line therapy and without prior ASCT. Stratification to R2 was based on refractory disease or early relapse; B symptoms, extranodal disease, or extensive disease with radiation therapy (RT) contraindicated at relapse; relapse in a prior RT field; or stage IIIB or IV at initial diagnosis. Patients in R2 received induction (IND) with 4 cycles of nivo + BV. Patients without complete metabolic response (CMR; Deauville score 1-3) received intensification (INT) with 2-4 cycles of BV + bendamustine. Patients with CMR after IND or INT discontinued study treatment, proceeded to HDCT/ASCT, and entered follow-up. Tumors were assessed by INV and blinded independent central review (BICR) per Lugano 2014 criteria (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol 2014) every 2 treatment cycles. Treatment decisions were based on BICR assessment. The primary endpoint was CMR rate by BICR prior to HDCT/ASCT. Secondary endpoints included INV-assessed response and safety. Results: At database lock (DBL), 32 patients in R2 had entered IND. Median age was 16 y (range 9-30), 78% were aged <18 y, and 72% were male. Fifteen patients (47%) had relapsed disease and 17 (53%) refractory; 14 (44%) had B symptoms or extranodal disease at relapse. At DBL, 25 patients (78%) had completed IND (4 cycles of nivo + BV); 7 ongoing. At the end of IND, INV-assessed responses were 16 (64%) CMR, 4 (16%) partial metabolic response, and 1 (4%) progressive metabolic disease; 4 (16%) were pending tumor assessment. Based on BICR assessment, 6 patients entered and completed INT; all achieved CMR after 2 cycles of BV + bendamustine. Overall, all evaluable patients achieved CMR by INV after completing IND or INT. At DBL, 18 patients had proceeded to HDCT/ASCT. During IND, 29 patients (91%) had ≥1 adverse event (AE) due to any cause; 7 (22%) grade 3-4. The most common AEs were nausea (53%), diarrhea (31%), and pyrexia (28%). Six patients (19%) had infusion-related reactions (IRRs); 1 (3%) grade 3-4. Four patients (13%) had drug-related serious AEs; 2 (6%) grade 3-4 (1 IRR and 1 activated partial thromboplastin time prolonged). Two patients (6%) had immune-mediated AEs, including 1 grade 3-4 IRR noted above; none had immune-related serious AEs. During INT, 3/6 patients (50%) had AEs; none grade 3-4; most common were nausea (33%) and vomiting (33%); 1 patient (3%) had grade 1 IRR. Overall, no AEs led to discontinuation and there were no deaths. Conclusion: For children, adolescents, and young adults with standard-risk R/R cHL prior to ASCT, this risk-stratified, response-adapted approach using nivo, BV, and bendamustine resulted in high CMR rates and was well tolerated, making it a promising novel salvage therapy. Most evaluated patients achieved CMR with IND (nivo + BV); all 6 who went to INT (BV + bendamustine) achieved CMR. Updated results based on a planned interim analysis including more patients and BICR-assessed response data will be presented. Study support: Sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Children's Oncology Group (COG) and EuroNet group. Disclosures Leger: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brugieres:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Financial support for SIOP meeting in 2016. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jou:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Other: company stock ownership.
Background Residual disease or rapidity of response to induction therapy is among the most powerful predictors of outcome in pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Method Utilizing a multiparameter flow cytometric chemosensitivity assay (FCCA), we studied the relationship between in vitro drug sensitivity of diagnostic leukemic blasts from 30 children with ALL and rapidity of response to induction therapy. We also analyzed the in vitro drug sensitivity of de novo leukemic blasts among various clinical subsets. Results Compared to rapid early responders (RER), slow early responders (SER) had a significantly greater in vitro drug resistance to Dexamethasone (DEX) (P = 0.04) and Prednisone (P = 0.05). The studies with all other drugs showed a non-significant trend with the SER having a higher in vitro drug resistance compared to the RER. Risk group stratified analyses indicated that in vitro resistance to Asparaginase (ASP), DEX, and Vincristine (VCR) were each significantly related to having very high risk ALL. Additionally, a significantly higher in vitro drug resistance to ASP and VCR was associated with unfavorable lymphoblast genetics and ultimate relapse. Conclusion Our data indicate that this FCCA is a potentially simple and rapid method to detect inherent resistance to initial ALL therapy very early in induction, thus allowing for treatment modification shortly thereafter.
Introduction This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin (BV) administered in combination with nivolumab (Nivo) in adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) who have failed frontline therapy (NCT02572167). Results from Parts 1 & 2 have been previously reported, wherein safety, efficacy, and biomarkers consistent with immune activation were observed in pts with R/R cHL (Herrera et al., Blood 2018). In Part 3, patients were treated with BV + Nivo on Day 1 of each cycle. In contrast, pts in Parts 1 & 2 received BV on C1D1 and Nivo on C1D8 with concurrent admin on subsequent cycles. Herein we present safety, efficacy, and biomarker results for Part 3 and updated progression free survival (PFS) from Parts 1 & 2. Methods Pts in Parts 1 & 2 received up to four 21-day cycles of staggered dosing (day 1 BV 1.8 mg/kg, day 8 Nivo 3 mg/kg in Cycle 1) and concurrent thereafter, with steroid and antihistamine premedication. Pts in Part 3 received up to four 21-day cycles of concurrent BV + Nivo on Day 1 with antihistamine premedication. Following Cycle 4 response assessment (Lugano Classification Revised Staging System with the incorporation of the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria [LYRIC, 2016]) responding pts were eligible to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results 30 pts were treated in Part 3 and all were evaluable for efficacy. Pt characteristics included the following: median age 31.5 yrs (range; 20 - 66), 63% female, 93% prior ABVD, 37% primary refractory HL, 30% relapsed within 1year of frontline therapy, 30% with extranodal disease and 17% with bulky disease at enrollment. 28 pts completed all 4 cycles. 1 pt discontinued treatment (tx) due to an adverse event (AE; Grade 3 [G3] elevated Gamma-Glutamyltransferase) and 1 pt due to progressive disease (PD). The latter pt eventually died due to PD. All pts are off tx and have been observed through the safety reporting period. 37% of pts experienced a G3 or higher tx emergent AE prior to ASCT. 30% of the pts experienced infusion related reactions (IRRs), which occurred most frequently during Cycle 2. Potential G3 or higher immune-related AEs (IRAEs), excluding IRRs, occurred in 2 pts, one of whom required steroids for G4 pneumonitis, which subsequently resolved. Among the 30 efficacy evaluable pts, the complete response (CR) rate was 80% (24/30), with an objective response rate (ORR) of 93%. 47% of pts (14) had a Deauville ≤2, and 17% (5) had Deauville 3. 5 pts with CR had a Deauville >3 and met LYRIC criteria for IR-2. 4/5 pts had a negative follow-up biopsy that confirmed CR and in 1 pt the PET finding was considered to be a false positive as contrast enhanced CT did not reveal any abnormality. All 5 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and remain in CR at follow-up. Among all treated patients, 25 went directly to ASCT after completing BV + Nivo tx with a median 6.8 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range 1-20) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 14 days, respectively. 4 pts required additional salvage therapy subsequent to study tx. Patients were followed for a median of 6 months from ASCT (N=25, range 0.8-8.8) and 10 months from first dose (N=30, range 1.8-12.7). The estimated 9-month PFS rate in all-treated pts was 88%. This is comparable to all-treated pts in Parts 1 & 2, whose estimated 9 and 15 month PFS were 86% and 82%, respectively (Fig 2). Biomarker testing was performed on peripheral blood samples, included immunophenotyping, serum cytokine analysis, and TCRβ sequencing. Concurrent dosing of BV+ Nivo resulted in increased levels of both activated and dividing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as increased regulatory T-cells and circulating plasmablasts. Cytokines and chemokines associated with innate and adaptive immune activation, including Type I and Type II interferons, IL-18, and IP-10, were significantly upregulated following BV + Nivo, while TARC levels were significantly diminished following therapy. TCRβ sequencing revealed clonal expansion in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Conclusion A concurrent dosing schedule of BV + Nivo was well tolerated with a high CR rate of 80%. Biomarkers evaluated in Part 3 indicate immune activation in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Cumulatively, the results in Part 3, along with the durable remissions noted in Parts 1 & 2, support BV + Nivo combination as an encouraging first salvage therapy prior to ASCT in pts with R/R cHL. Disclosures Advani: Forty Seven: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Feldman:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; KITE: Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden:Seattle Genetics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.