Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (-78.8 vs. -47.4% [p < 0.0001] and -25.0 vs. -13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (-22.7 vs. -17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (-50.3 vs. -13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (-80.5 vs. -46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Stem cell therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a review of recent clinical trials

Stem cell therapy is one of the most promising treatments for the near future. It is expected that this kind of therapy can ameliorate or even reverse some diseases. With regard to type 1 diabetes, studies analyzing the therapeutic effects of stem cells in humans began in 2003 in the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto - SP USP, Brazil, and since then other centers in different countries started to randomize patients in their clinical trials. Herein we summarize recent data about beta cell regeneration, different ways of immune intervention and what is being employed in type 1 diabetic patients with regard to stem cell repertoire to promote regeneration and/or preservation of beta cell mass.

Biowaiver monographs for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms: Stavudine

Literature data relevant to the decision to allow a waiver of in vivo bioequivalence (BE) testing for the approval of immediate-release (IR) solid oral dosage forms containing stavudine (d4T) are reviewed. According to Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS), d4T can be assigned to BCS class I. No problems with BE of IR d4T formulations containing different excipients and produced by different manufacturing methods have been reported and, hence, the risk of bioinequivalence caused by these factors appears to be low. Furthermore, d4T has a wide therapeutic index. It is concluded that a biowaiver is appropriate for IR solid oral dosage forms containing d4T as the single active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) provided that (a) the test product contains only excipients present in the IR d4T drug products that have been approved in a number of countries for the same dosage form, and (b) both test product and its comparator are either very rapidly dissolving or rapidly dissolving with similarity of dissolution profiles demonstrated at pH 1.2, 4.5, and 6.8. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 101:1016, 2012

Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

Purpose Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2: 1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. Results In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. Conclusion Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC. J Clin Oncol 30:3596-3603. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research

Major depressive disorder (MDD) trials - investigating either non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions - have shown mixed results. Many reasons explain this heterogeneity, but one that stands out is the trial design due to specific challenges in the field. We aimed therefore to review the methodology of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) trials and provide a framework to improve clinical trial design. We performed a systematic review for randomized, controlled MDD trials whose intervention was transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in MEDLINE and other databases from April 2002 to April 2008. We created an unstructured checklist based on CONSORT guidelines to extract items such as power analysis, sham method, blinding assessment, allocation concealment, operational criteria used for MDD, definition of refractory depression and primary study hypotheses. Thirty-one studies were included. We found that the main methodological issues can be divided in to three groups: (1) issues related to phase II/small trials, (2) issues related to MDD trials and, (3) specific issues of NIBS studies. Taken together, they can threaten study validity and lead to inconclusive results. Feasible solutions include: estimating the sample size a priori; measuring the degree of refractoriness of the subjects; specifying the primary hypothesis and statistical tests; controlling predictor variables through stratification randomization methods or using strict eligibility criteria; adjusting the study design to the target population; using adaptive designs and exploring NIBS efficacy employing biological markers. In conclusion, our study summarizes the main methodological issues of NIBS trials and proposes a number of alternatives to manage them. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cediranib: a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Cediranib is a potent inhibitor of the VEGF family receptor tyrosine kinases, and a new agent in cancer treatment. The drug has shown promising activity in a variety of solid malignancies, in preclinical models and in clinical trials. Its pharmacokinetics allow for a convenient once-daily administration, with a toxicity profile that is very similar to other VEGF inhibitors. Its main side effects include hypertension, nausea, dysphonia, fatigue and diarrhea. Adverse events seem to be manageable, especially when used in doses lower than 45 mg/day. Studies have shown some activity as a single agent or in combination in advanced tumors, but not enough to secure its approval for routine use up to now. Clinical trials are still evaluating the role of cediranib in combination chemotherapy with cytotoxic agents.

Towards global consensus on outcome measures for atopic eczema research: results of the HOME II meeting

The use of nonstandardized and inadequately validated outcome measures in atopic eczema trials is a major obstacle to practising evidence-based dermatology. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative is an international multiprofessional group dedicated to atopic eczema outcomes research. In June 2011, the HOME initiative conducted a consensus study involving 43 individuals from 10 countries, representing different stakeholders (patients, clinicians, methodologists, pharmaceutical industry) to determine core outcome domains for atopic eczema trials, to define quality criteria for atopic eczema outcome measures and to prioritize topics for atopic eczema outcomes research. Delegates were given evidence-based information, followed by structured group discussion and anonymous consensus voting. Consensus was achieved to include clinical signs, symptoms, long-term control of flares and quality of life into the core set of outcome domains for atopic eczema trials. The HOME initiative strongly recommends including and reporting these core outcome domains as primary or secondary endpoints in all future atopic eczema trials. Measures of these core outcome domains need to be valid, sensitive to change and feasible. Prioritized topics of the HOME initiative are the identification/development of the most appropriate instruments for the four core outcome domains. HOME is open to anyone with an interest in atopic eczema outcomes research.

Cancer-related deaths among different treatment options in chronic coronary artery disease: results of a 6-year follow-up of the MASS II study

Introduction The primary end points of randomized clinical trials evaluating the outcome of therapeutic strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) have included nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, the need for further revascularization, and overall mortality. Noncardiac causes of death may distort the interpretation of the long-term effects of coronary revascularization. Materials and methods This post-hoc analysis of the second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study evaluates the cause of mortality of patients with multivessel CAD undergoing medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, or surgical myocardial revascularization [coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)] after a 6-year follow-up. Mortality was classified as cardiac and noncardiac death, and the causes of noncardiac death were reported. Results Patients were randomized into CABG and non-CABG groups (percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical treatment). No statistical differences were observed in overall mortality (P = 0.824). A significant difference in the distribution of causes of mortality was observed among the CABG and non-CABG groups (P = 0.003). In the CABG group, of the 203 randomized patients, the overall number of deaths was 34. Sixteen patients (47.1%) died of cardiac causes and 18 patients (52.9%) died of noncardiac causes. Of these, seven deaths (20.6%) were due to neoplasia. In the non-CABG group, comprising 408 patients, the overall number of deaths was 69. Fifty-three patients (77%) died of cardiac causes and 16 patients (23%) died of noncardiac causes. Only five deaths (7.2%) were due to neoplasia. Conclusion Different treatment options for multivessel coronary artery disease have similar overall mortality: CABG patients had the lowest incidence of cardiac death, but the highest incidence of noncardiac causes of death, and specifically a higher tendency toward cancer-related deaths. Coron Artery Dis 23:79-84 (C) 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

The ARIQUELI study: potentiation of quetiapine in bipolar I nonresponders with lithium versus aripiprazole

Abstract Background:The treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) remains a challenge due to the complexity of the disease. Current guidelines represent an effort to assist clinicians in routine practice but have several limitations, particularly concerning long-term treatment. The ARIQUELI (efficacy and tolerability of the combination of lithium or aripiprazole in young bipolar non or partial responders to quetiapine monotherapy) study aims to evaluate two different augmentation strategies for quetiapine nonresponders or partial responders in acute and maintenance phases of BD treatment. Methods/Design: The ARIQUELI study is a single-site, parallel-group, randomized, outcome assessor-blinded trial. BD I patients according to the DSM-IV-TR, in depressive, manic/hypomanic or mixed episode, aged 18 to 40 years, are eligible. After diagnostic assessments, patients initiated treatment in phase I with quetiapine. Nonresponders or partial responders after 8 weeks are allocated into one of two groups, potentiated with either lithium (0.5 to 0.8 mEq/l) or aripiprazole (10 or 15 mg). Patients will be followed up for 8 weeks in phase I (acute treatment), 6 months in phase II (continuation treatment) and 12 months in phase III (maintenance treatment). Outcome assessors are blinded to the treatment. The primary outcome is the evaluation of changes in mean scores on the CGI-BP-M between baseline and the endpoint at the end of each study phase. Discussion: The ARIQUELI study is currently in progress, with patients undergoing acute treatment (phase I), potentiation (phase II) and maintenance (phase III). The study will be extended until January 2015. Trials comparing lithium and aripiprazole with potentiate treatment in young BD I nonresponders to quetiapine in monotherapy can provide relevant information on the safety of these drugs in clinical practice. Long-term treatment is an issue of great importance and should be evaluated further through more in-depth studies given that BD is a chronic disease. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01710163