METHODS: In the international RE-COVERY DVT/PE observational study (enrollment January 2016 to May 2017), we sought to characterize the patient population and describe the prescribed anticoagulant. Patient characteristics and anticoagulants administered after objective diagnosis of VTE were recorded at the baseline visit and again at hospital discharge or at 14 days after the diagnosis, whichever was later.
RESULTS: A total of 6095 patients were included, 50.2% were male, and the mean age was 61.5 years. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35%), diabetes mellitus (11%), cancer (11%), prior VTE(11%), and trauma/surgery (7%). Overall, 77% of patients received oral anticoagulants, with 54% on NOACs and 23% on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs); 20% received parenteral anticoagulation only. NOACs comprised about 60% of anticoagulant treatment in Europe and Asia but substantially less in Latin America (29%) and the Middle East (21%). For NOAC therapies, the distribution (as a percentage of the total cohort) was rivaroxaban 25.6%, dabigatran 15.5%, apixaban 11.3%, and edoxaban 1.7%. Treatment with NOACs was less frequent in patients who had cancer, chronic renal disease, heart failure, or stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings enhance our understanding of baseline characteristics and the initial management of patients with VTE in routine practice.
Methods: Each 24-well plate of Vero cells infected with all four DENV serotypes, singly, was subjected to treatments with various doses of AR-12. Following 48 h of incubation, inhibitory efficacies of AR-12 against the different DENV serotypes were evaluated by conducting a virus yield reduction assay whereby DENV RNA copy numbers present in the collected supernatant were quantified using qRT-PCR. The underlying mechanism(s) possibly involved in the compound's inhibitory activities were then investigated by performing molecular docking on several potential target human and DENV protein domains.
Results: The qRT-PCR data demonstrated that DENV-3 was most potently inhibited by AR-12, followed by DENV-1, DENV-2 and DENV-4. Our molecular docking findings suggested that AR-12 possibly exerted its inhibitory effects by interfering with the chaperone activities of heat shock proteins.
Conclusions: These results serve as vital information for the design of future studies involving in vitro mechanistic studies and animal models, aiming to decipher the potential of AR-12 as a potential therapeutic option for DENV infection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.