-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Mpox (earlier known as monkeypox) virus infection is a recognized public health emergency. There has been little research on the treatment options. This article reviews... (Review)
Review
Mpox (earlier known as monkeypox) virus infection is a recognized public health emergency. There has been little research on the treatment options. This article reviews the specific drugs used to treat mpox virus infection and the vaccines used here. Instead of focusing on the mechanistic basis, this review narrates the practical, real-life experiences of individual patients of mpox virus disease being administered these medicines. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on the treatment of the mpox virus using data from several databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The research on this topic has grown tremendously recently but it is highly concentrated in a few countries. Cidofovir is the most studied drug. This is because it is indicated and also used off-label for several conditions. The drugs used for mpox virus infection include tecovirimat, cidofovir, brincidofovir, vaccinia immune globulin, and trifluridine. Tecovirimat is used most frequently. It is a promising option in progressive mpox disease in terms of both efficacy and safety. Brincidofovir has been associated with treatment discontinuation due to elevated hepatic enzymes. Cidofovir is also not the preferred drug, often used because of the unavailability of tecovirimat. Trifluridine is used topically as an add-on agent along with tecovirimat for ocular manifestations of mpox virus disease. No study reports individual patient data for vaccinia immune globulin. Though no vaccine is currently approved for mpox virus infection, ACAM 2000 and JYNNEOS are the vaccines being mainly considered. ACAM 2000 is capable of replicating and may cause severe adverse reactions. It is used when JYNNEOS is contraindicated. Several drugs and vaccines are under development and have been discussed alongside pragmatic aspects of mpox virus treatment and prevention. Further studies can provide more insight into the safety and efficacy of Tecovirimat in actively progressing mpox virus disease.
PubMed: 37214444
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1149909 -
American Journal of Cancer Research 2020Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive cancers with a high rate of recurrence and metastasis. Trifluridine (TFT) is a thymidine analog to...
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive cancers with a high rate of recurrence and metastasis. Trifluridine (TFT) is a thymidine analog to target thymidylate synthase (TS) and has potent ant-herpes simplex virus activity. However, little is known whether and how TFT treatment can modulate the growth of TNBC. In this study, we found that treatment with TFT selectively inhibited the proliferation of TNBC cells and triggered their apoptosis. TFT treatment significantly up-regulatd the expression of G1 phase inhibitor p21 and p27, and pro-apoptotic factor γ-H2AX, Bax and cleaved caspase-7 in TNBC cells. TFT treatment significantly down-regulated the expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), minichromosome maintenance component 7 (MCM7) and anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 in TNBC cells. TFT treatment significantly mitigated the growth of implanted mouse TNBC in vivo, associated with increased expression of γ-H2AX and cleaved caspase-7 in mouse TNBC tumors. TS expression was up-regulated in breast cancer, particularly in TNBC tissues, and up-regulated TS expression was significantly associated with a shorter overall survival and disease free survival in TNBC patients. TS silencing selectively decreased the proliferation of TNBC cells, but did not trigger their apoptosis. Treatment with TFT induced DNA double strand break (DSB) and damages in TNBC cells. Collectively, TFT selectively inhibited the growth of TNBC by inducing chromosome instability and inhibiting thymidine synthase. Therefore, TFT may be valuable for the intervention of TNBC.
PubMed: 32195023
DOI: No ID Found -
Pharmacological Research Feb 2020Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide. While standard chemotherapy and new targeted therapy have been improved recently,... (Review)
Review
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide. While standard chemotherapy and new targeted therapy have been improved recently, problems such as multidrug resistance (MDR) and severe side effects remain unresolved. RNAs are essential to all biological processes including cell proliferation and differentiation, cell cycle, apoptosis, activation of tumor suppressor genes, suppression of oncogenes. Therefore, there are various potential approaches to address genetic disease like CRC at the RNA level. In contrast to conventional treatments, RNA-based therapeutics such as RNA interference, antisense oligonucleotides, RNA aptamer, ribozymes, have the advantages of high specificity, high potency and low toxicity. It has gained more and more attention due to the flexibility in modulating a wide range of targets. Here, we highlight recent advances and clinical studies involving RNA-based therapeutics and CRC. We also discuss their advantages and limitations that remain to be overcome for the treatment of human CRC.
Topics: Animals; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; RNA; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31866285
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104550 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2023Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (FTD/TPI + BEV) has shown efficacy and tolerability in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because randomized...
BACKGROUND
Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (FTD/TPI + BEV) has shown efficacy and tolerability in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because randomized controlled trial (RCT) data comparing FTD/TPI + BEV with FTD/TPI are lacking, this meta-analysis evaluated outcomes with both regimens.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
Electronic databases, congress proceedings (past 3 years), trial registries, systematic review bibliographies, gray literature, and guidelines through June 2021 were searched for RCTs, non-RCTs, and prospective observational studies involving >20 previously treated patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI + BEV or FTD/TPI. Absolute and relative disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse event (AE) rates, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were evaluated using fixed-effects and random-effects models. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed.
RESULTS
In all, 29 of 875 screened publications were selected (26 studies: 5 RCTs, 11 non-RCTs, and 10 prospective observational studies). One RCT compared FTD/TPI + BEV with FTD/TPI. FTD/TPI + BEV FTD/TPI had a higher absolute DCR [64% (6 studies; = 289) 43% (10 studies; = 2809)], median PFS [4.2 (5 studies; = 244) 2.6 (6 studies; = 1781) months], 12-month PFS [9% (5 studies; = 244) 3% (6 studies; = 1781)], median OS [9.8 (5 studies; = 244) 8.1 (6 studies; = 1814) months], and 12-month OS [38% (5 studies; = 244) 32% (6 studies; = 1814)]. Grade ⩾3 febrile neutropenia, asthenia/fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting rates were similar (1%-7%). Grade ⩾3 neutropenia rate was higher with FTD/TPI + BEV than with FTD/TPI [43% (6 studies; = 294) 29% (12 studies; = 7139)]. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar [8% (5 studies; = 244) and 7% (10 studies; = 3724)]. Low study quality, heterogeneity, and/or publication bias were detected in certain instances.
CONCLUSION
Despite fewer patients treated with the combination, this meta-analysis consistently suggested that FTD/TPI + BEV provides benefits over FTD/TPI in refractory mCRC and has similar safety, except for more frequent grade ⩾3 neutropenia.
PubMed: 36743525
DOI: 10.1177/17588359221146137 -
The Oncologist Oct 2023We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with irinotecan in a phase II trial setting for refractory, advanced unresectable...
BACKGROUND
We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with irinotecan in a phase II trial setting for refractory, advanced unresectable biliary tract carcinoma (BTC).
METHODS
A total of 28 patients (27 were evaluable) with advanced BTCs who progressed on at least one prior systemic therapy were enrolled and were treated with trifluridine/tipiracil 25 mg/m2 (days 1-5 of 14-day cycle) and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (day 1 of the 14-day cycle). The primary endpoint for the study was 16-week progression-free survival (PFS16) rate. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were pre-specified secondary endpoints.
RESULTS
Of 27 patients, PFS16 rate was 37% (10/27; 95% CI: 19%-58%), thereby meeting the criteria for success for the primary endpoint. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-7.4) and 9.1 months (95% CI: 8.0-14.3), respectively. In the patients evaluable for tumor response (n = 20), the ORR and DCR were 10% and 50%, respectively. Twenty patients (74.1%) had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event (AE), and 4 patients (14.8%) had grade 4 AEs. A total of 37% (n = 10/27) and 51.9% (n = 14/27) experienced dose reductions in trifluridine/tipiracil and irinotecan, respectively. Delay in therapy was noted in 56% of the patients while 1 patient discontinued the therapy, primarily due to hematologic AEs.
CONCLUSION
The combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus irinotecan is a potential treatment option for patients with advanced, refractory BTCs with good functional status and no targetable mutations. A larger randomized trial is needed to confirm these results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072445).
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biliary Tract; Carcinoma; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Trifluridine
PubMed: 37339254
DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad144 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2023The management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has the continuum of care as the treatment paradigm. To date, trifluridine/tipiracil, a biochemically... (Review)
Review
The management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has the continuum of care as the treatment paradigm. To date, trifluridine/tipiracil, a biochemically modulated fluoropyrimidine, and regorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, remain the main options for the majority of patients who progressed to standard doublet- or triplet-based chemotherapies, although a tailored approach could be indicated in certain circumstances. Being highly selective for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2 and -3, fruquintinib demonstrated a strong anti-tumor activity in preclinical models and received approval from China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in 2018 for the treatment of patients with chemo-refractory mCRC. The approval was based on the results of the phase III FRESCO trial. Then, in order to overcome geographic differences in clinical practice, the FRESCO-2 trial was conducted in the US, Europe, Japan, and Australia. In a heavily pretreated patient population, the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an advantage of fruquintinib over a placebo in overall survival (OS). Here, we review the clinical development of fruquintinib and its perspectives in gastrointestinal cancers. Then, we discuss the introduction of fruquintinib in the continuum of care of CRC paying special attention to unmet needs, including the identification of cross-resistant and potentially susceptible populations, evaluation of radiological response, and identification of novel biomarkers of clinical benefit.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Benzofurans; Colonic Neoplasms; Rectal Neoplasms; Continuity of Patient Care
PubMed: 36982913
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24065840 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more... (Review)
Review
Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician-patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.
PubMed: 33193826
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920956862 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Nov 2019Therapeutic options for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) have significantly expanded since 2009. The oral targeted therapies regorafenib and... (Review)
Review
Therapeutic options for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) have significantly expanded since 2009. The oral targeted therapies regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil have been established to be efficacious and safe in patients with mcrc who have progressed beyond 2 or more lines of chemotherapy. Evidence for the use of immunotherapy in a subgroup of this patient population is also encouraging, particularly in patients with mcrc that exhibits high microsatellite instability or deficient mismatch repair. Those significant advances have led to Health Canada approval of 3 novel therapeutic options for the treatment of patients with chemorefractory mcrc. However, the limited clinical efficacy of those treatments underscores the need for ongoing development of systemic therapy options for this unique cohort of patients. Here, we review the current and emerging treatment landscape for chemorefractory mcrc.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Male; Neoplasm Metastasis
PubMed: 31819707
DOI: 10.3747/co.26.5575 -
Future Oncology (London, England) Sep 2022The efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer have been demonstrated. The authors present the...
The efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer have been demonstrated. The authors present the Turkish analysis of the PRECONNECT study. An international, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase IIIb trial evaluating FTD/TPI in patients with ≥2 previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer was conducted. The primary end point was safety. In this Turkish cohort (n = 100; eight centers), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (48%). Median progression-free survival was 3.0 months; disease control rate was 36%; quality of life remained stable. Outcomes with FTD/TPI in Turkey are consistent with previous studies and confirm the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI treatment in the third-line setting. NCT03306394 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colorectal Neoplasms; Drug Combinations; Pyrrolidines; Quality of Life; Thymine; Trifluridine; Turkey
PubMed: 36040321
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2022-0455