Union, New Jersey

Product Surveillance Registry

Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Test

It's known that PSA level can be elevated due to reasons other than prostate cancer including benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostatitis or other urinary tract infections, non-infectious inflammation, and physiologic variation over time. Consequently, nearly 50% of prostate biopsy procedures performed due to elevated PSA level do not yield any cancer , but still expose the patients to the risks of the procedure related complications (discomfort/pain, anxiety, bleeding, infection, and cost). Thus, measures to improve the reliability of PSA test, and potentially avoiding unnecessary procedures, are of significant importance to the patient and healthcare system. It is common practice to check PSA level annually. PSA test results can vary over time, either due to the imprecision in the analysis and/or due to the biologic variability. This can result in an apparent rise in PSA level when no clinically meaningful rise had occurred. Its estimated that the average lab variation in PSA was approximately 6% and the average biologic variation about 14%. This, it is recommended that isolated elevation in PSA level should be confirmed after several weeks, and before proceeding with further interventions, including prostate biopsy. Sub-clinical, histologic Inflammation (presence of inflammatory cells) within the prostate tissue and its effect on PSA level has been reported in various settings. In two population-based studies, men who were regularly using over the counter (OTC) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, e.g ibuprofen, naproxen) had lower PSA levels compared to non-users. Currently, two strategies are utilized in clinical practice to ensure that the PSA level is truly elevated: 1. Repeat PSA test after several weeks or 2. A short course of OTC NSAIDs, and then repeat PSA test Investigators propose to conduct a randomized study to determine the effect of NSAIDs on PSA level compared to the biologic variations in PSA level noted upon repeat testing.

A Study of Repotrectinib in Pediatric and Young Adult Subjects Harboring ALK, ROS1, OR NTRK1-3 Alterations

Enrollment of subjects into Phase 1 will proceed concurrently by age as follows: - Subjects <12 years old will initially be enrolled in the Phase 1 part to determine the pediatric RP2D for this age group; once the pediatric RP2D is determined, subjects age <12 years old may be enrolled into the Phase 2 part of the study. - Subjects 12 to 25 years old will be directly enrolled into the Phase 2 part concurrent with Phase 1 enrollment. Phase 1: Approximately 12 pediatric subjects with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, including a primary central nervous system (CNS) tumor, or anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), with disease progression or who are non-responsive or intolerant to available therapies and for which no standard or available curative therapy exists. Phase 2: Subjects will be enrolled in one of 3 cohorts as follows: Cohort 1: approximately 10-20 subjects with solid tumors characterized by NTRK fusion, TRK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve, and centrally confirmed measurable disease at baseline. Cohort 2: approximately 23 subjects with solid tumors characterized by NTRK fusion, TRK TKI-pretreated, and centrally confirmed measurable disease at baseline. Cohort 3: approximately 20 subjects with solid tumors or ALCL characterized by other ALK/ROS1/NTRK alterations or NTRK fusions without centrally confirmed measurable disease not otherwise eligible for Cohort 1 or 2. As of the current protocol amendment, only patients with ROS1 alterations will be enrolled to this cohort.

Clinical Decision Support Tool in PARDS Pilot Study

The central hypothesis is that CDS will help standardize ventilator management consistent with evidence-based recommendations leading to shorter LMV by limiting VILI (Ventilator Induced Lung Injury), preventing VIDD (Ventilator Induced Diaphragm Dysfunction) and allowing earlier recognition that patients are ready for liberation from the ventilator. However, key questions must be addressed prior to wide dissemination of this CDS tool: Specific Aim 1: To assess the feasibility of implementing a web-based, de-identified CDS tool for MV in pediatric ARDS in multiple PICUs. Hypothesis: this CDS tool will be implementable in all PICUs to function consistent with each hospital's specific Information Technology (IT) capabilities. Specific Aim 2: To assess the acceptability and compliance with recommendations from the CDS tool related to oxygenation, ventilation, weaning and extubation readiness testing in PARDS patients at each of the participating PICUs (anticipated 20 patients enrolled per site). Hypothesis: over time, adherence with recommendations in each of these domains will exceed 80% in all PICUs. Specific Aim 3: To implement methods for automated data capture within CDS to provide the right information, to the right person, using the right format, in the right channel and at the right time during workflow ("CDS Five Rights") framework, which can be adapted to the individual IT capabilities at each hospital. Hypothesis: Over 90% of necessary data can be pulled into the CDS in an automated fashion in sites which have access to electronic data capture of ventilator settings and blood gases. Patients will be managed on the eVentilator protocol (the CDS tool), through the acute, stable and weaning phases of mechanical ventilation, including Spontaneous Breathing tests (SBTs) and Extubation Readiness tests. Data will be qualitatively assessed for implementation barriers. Acceptance and rejection and mode stratification will be examined. Data needed for the CDS protocol will be available electronically or can be interfaced through the bedside monitor. Patients will be on the CDS protocol, as intent to treat, while patient is on invasive mechanical ventilation, capped at 28 days, limitation of care, or death, whichever comes first.

Safety, PK and Efficacy of ONC-392 in Monotherapy and in Combination of Anti-PD-1 in Advanced Solid Tumors and NSCLC

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), also known as CD152 (cluster of differentiation 152), is a cell surface protein receptor that interacts with B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86) to ensure proper function of regulatory T cells and protect host against autoinflammatory diseases. Anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have demonstrated strong and broad cancer immunotherapeutic effects (CITE) in a variety of preclinical models and are used clinically both as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy with Nivolumab (anti-PD-1). However, CTLA-4 monotherapy has more immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) than anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. In addition, the rate of severe irAE (Grades 3 and 4) reached 55% in melanoma patients receiving combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab. The strong irAEs further limit the doses tolerated by cancer patients. Nevertheless, combination with anti-PD-1 resulted in significantly improved response rates and patient survival in multiple types of cancer. Furthermore, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies induce long-lasting immunity in cancer patients. Therefore, CTLA-4 remains an important immunotherapy target, but major challenges remain in improving both safety and efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. ONC-392 is a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG1-kappa isotype antibody against CTLA-4. The parental clone was identified through in vivo screening in humanized CTLA-4 mouse model for high anti-tumor efficacy and low autoimmune toxicity. We have recently demonstrated that ONC-392 is dissociation from CTLA-4 under low pH to allow its escape from lysosomal degradation and recycle to cell surface. We have provided several lines of evidence for the notion that a pH-sensitive antibody ONC-392 is not only safer but also more effective in Treg depletion and tumor rejection than the Ipilimumab, which is pH-insensitive. First, by preserving CTLA-4 on the cell surface, Onc-392 leaves higher ligand density for better ADCC. Second, Onc-392 is more efficient in Treg depletion in tumor microenvironment. Third, Onc-392 is significantly more potent in inducing rejection of large tumors. The study consists of four parts: (1) The Part A study is a dose-finding rapid titration, Phase I trial of ONC-392 as a single agent in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors with various histology. The aim of this trial is to define the recommended Phase II dose for ONC-392 monotherapy (RP2D-M). (2) The Part B study is a dose-finding phase with ONC-392 in combination with a standard dose of 200 mg pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. (3) The Part C consists of different expansion arms. 1. Arm A: Pancreatic Cancer Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who have progressive disease after first and second lines of systemic treatment. 2. Arm B: TNBC Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic TNBC patients who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. 3. Arm C: NSCLC Mono Cohort 1, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients with EGFR or ALK mutations who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 4. Arm D: NSCLC IO Naïve Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC cancer patients who are treatment naïve, or anti PD (L)1 immunotherapy naïve and PD-L1-positive (PD L1 TPS ≥ 1%). 5. Arm E: NSCLC IO R/R Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC cancer patients who are R/R to prior anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. 6. Arm F: Melanoma IO Naïve Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic Melanoma patients who are treatment naïve, or checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy naive. Prior systemic chemotherapy or targeted therapy are allowed. 7. Arm G: Melanoma IO R/R Cohort, ONC-392/Pembrolizumab combination therapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic melanoma patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. 8. Arm I: NSCLC Mono Cohort 2, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR or ALK mutations who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy or checkpoint inhibitors. Patient must have anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, either alone or in combination, as last treatment before enrollment. Prior anti-CTLA-4 treatment is allowed. 9. Arm J: Melanoma Mono Cohort, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic melanoma patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. 10. Arm K: Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC), ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic HNSCC patients with or without positive HPV who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy or checkpoint inhibitors. Patient must have anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, either alone or in combination, as last treatment before enrollment. 11. Arm L: Ovarian Cancer, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll patients with advanced/metastatic ovarian cancer who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 12. Arm M: Solid Tumors, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors who are not eligible for Arm A-C or H-L, who have progressive disease after prior systemic treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. 13. Arm N: Renal Cell Carcinoma, ONC-392 monotherapy, will enroll advanced/metastatic RCC patients who are R/R to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. (4) Part D is a Phase II study in recurrent and/or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma with ONC-392 monotherapy. (5) Part E Arm O will test ONC-392 in combination with docetaxel in PD-1 resistant NSCLC.

Von Willebrand Factor in Pregnancy (VIP) Study

For pregnant women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) who by the third trimester do not have von Willebrand factor (VWF) or factor VIII (FVIII) levels > 50-100%, specific guidance is lacking for delivery planning for how high a VWF level should be achieved. Specifically, guidance is lacking on whether VWF replacement therapy should target a VWF minimum level in the 100-150% range, i.e., a range closer to the 200-250% levels observed in normal pregnancy. This is a prospective, open-label, cohort study using Wilate VWF replacement therapy, trough or minimum VWF levels of 100-150% will be maintained for delivery in women with VWD whose third trimester VWF levels are <100%. This group is termed "non-correctors". Women with VWD whose third trimester VWF levels spontaneously rise to >100% will be assigned to the "corrector" group, and these women will not receive VWF replacement therapy. All patients will receive tranexamic acid for 14 days postpartum. Outcome parameters will be assessed for all patients. The investigators or qualified research personnel will approach all consecutive pregnant VWD patients until 65 non-corrector patients have completed the study protocol, and up to 30 corrector patients have completed the study protocol. Patients with gestational week 34-38 von Willebrand factor activity (VWF:Act) or von Willebrand factor ristocetin cofactor (VWF:RCo), and/or Factor VIII procoagulant activity (FVIII:C) less than 100 percent will be used to assign patients to the non-corrector group. When VWF collagen binding (VWF:CB) laboratory monitoring can be performed, patients with an isolated VWF:CB type 2 defect can also be enrolled. Rate of primary postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, secondary postpartum hemorrhage will be measured. Safety and secondary laboratory measures will be assessed.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Ureteral Stent Placement After Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Kidney stones affect 9% individuals within the United States, and the prevalence is increasing. Over the last few decades, ureteroscopy has become the most commonly performed stone procedure. However the complication rate after ureteroscopy is not insignificant. Reducing morbidity after ureteroscopy would improve patient outcomes and reduce health care utilization. A major contributor to patient morbidity after ureteroscopy is the ureteral stent, which is placed at the time of surgery and left in place 1-2 weeks after surgery. The rationale for utilizing stents is to prevent urinary obstruction from edema or stone fragments. On the other hand, stents cause hematuria, pain, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Additionally, stent-related symptoms are often misdiagnosed as urinary tract infections leading to unnecessary antibiotic use. The clinical utility of ureteral stents after ureteroscopy has not been well studied, specifically a stone located in the kidney. Prior studies on stent-less ureteroscopic procedures have focused on treatment of ureteral stones and not stones located in the kidney, have had restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria, are primarily from single center institutions, and most being performed ~15 years ago. Surgical techniques and device innovations have changed the procedure since that time. To date, there have been only 2 studies that included stone located in the kidney showing no difference in unplanned hospital revisits, however both combined analyses with ureteral stones and selection bias was an issue for both studies. In addition, there is a lack of studies assessing opiate use, impact of quality of life with stent placement, and loss of work related to stent placement