Vaniprevir with pegylated interferon alpha-2a and ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C: a randomized phase II study.

Vaniprevir (MK-7009) is a macrocyclic hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 3/4A protease inhibitor. The aim of the present phase II study was to examine virologic response rates with vaniprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peg-IFN-α-2a) plus ribavirin (RBV). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study, treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection (n = 94) were randomized to receive open-label Peg-IFN-α-2a (180 μg/week) and RBV (1,000-1,200 mg/day) in combination with blinded placebo or vaniprevir (300 mg twice-daily [BID], 600 mg BID, 600 mg once-daily [QD], or 800 mg QD) for 28 days, then open-label Peg-IFN-α-2a and RBV for an additional 44 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was rapid viral response (RVR), defined as undetectable plasma HCV RNA at week 4. Across all doses, vaniprevir was associated with a rapid two-phase decline in viral load, with HCV RNA levels approximately 3 log(10) IU/mL lower in vaniprevir-treated patients, compared to placebo recipients. Rates of RVR were significantly higher in each of the vaniprevir dose groups, compared to the control regimen (68.8%-83.3% versus 5.6%; P < 0.001 for all comparisons). There were numerically higher, but not statistically significant, early and sustained virologic response rates with vaniprevir, as compared to placebo. Resistance profile was predictable, with variants at R155 and D168 detected in a small number of patients. No relationship between interleukin-28B genotype and treatment outcomes was demonstrated in this study. The incidence of adverse events was generally comparable between vaniprevir and placebo recipients; however, vomiting appeared to be more common at higher vaniprevir doses. CONCLUSION: Vaniprevir is a potent HCV protease inhibitor with a predictable resistance profile and favorable safety profile that is suitable for QD or BID administration.

Can a targeted psychological intervention be effective for young people following a first manic episode? Results from an 18-month pilot study.

Aim: There is a scarce literature describing psychological interventions for a young, first-episode cohort who have experienced psychotic mania. This study aimed to assess whether a manualized psychological intervention could be effective in reducing symptomatology and relapse, and improve functional outcome in this population. Methods: The study was an open-label design, drawn from a larger pharmacotherapy trial. All participants in the pharmacotherapy trial were offered a manualized psychological intervention in addition to case management. Inclusion in the psychotherapy group was based on participant's choice, and on completion of four or more of the eight modules offered. All clinical files were audited to ensure accuracy of group allocation. Forty young people aged 15 to 25 years old who had experienced a manic episode with psychotic features were recruited into the study, with 20 people in the combined treatment as usual plus psychotherapy group (P+TAU), and an equal number of matched control participants who received treatment as usual (TAU) within the same service. All participants were prescribed antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medication. Symptomatic, functional and relapse measures were taken both at baseline and at 18-month follow-up. Results: Manic symptoms improved significantly for both groups, with no differences between groups. Depression scores and overall symptom severity were significantly lower in the P + TAU group. No differences were evident between groups with regard to numbers or type of relapse. The P + TAU group had significantly better social and occupational functioning after 18 months. Conclusion: This study suggests that a manualized psychological intervention targeted to a first-episode population can be effective in reducing depression and overall symptom severity, and can improve functional outcome following a first episode of psychotic mania.

Complete longitudinal analyses of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor following imatinib failure.

PURPOSE: To analyze final long-term survival and clinical outcomes from the randomized phase III study of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients after imatinib failure; to assess correlative angiogenesis biomarkers with patient outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given daily on a 4-week-on/2-week-off treatment schedule. Placebo-assigned patients could cross over to sunitinib at disease progression/study unblinding. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using conventional statistical methods and the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method to explore cross-over impact. Circulating levels of angiogenesis biomarkers were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 243 patients were randomized to receive sunitinib and 118 to placebo, 103 of whom crossed over to open-label sunitinib. Conventional statistical analysis showed that OS converged in the sunitinib and placebo arms (median 72.7 vs. 64.9 weeks; HR, 0.876; P = 0.306) as expected, given the cross-over design. RPSFT analysis estimated median OS for placebo of 39.0 weeks (HR, 0.505, 95% CI, 0.262-1.134; P = 0.306). No new safety concerns emerged with extended sunitinib treatment. No consistent associations were found between the pharmacodynamics of angiogenesis-related plasma proteins during sunitinib treatment and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-over design provided evidence of sunitinib clinical benefit based on prolonged time to tumor progression during the double-blind phase of this trial. As expected, following cross-over, there was no statistical difference in OS. RPSFT analysis modeled the absence of cross-over, estimating a substantial sunitinib OS benefit relative to placebo. Long-term sunitinib treatment was tolerated without new adverse events.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

Impact of enhanced compliance initiatives on the efficacy of rosuvastatin in reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia.

The effectiveness of lipid-lowering medication critically depends on the patients' compliance and the efficacy of the prescribed drug. The primary objective of this multicentre study was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with or without access to compliance initiatives, in bringing patients to the Joint European Task Force's (1998) recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level goal (LDL-C, <3.0 mmol/L) at week 24. Secondary objectives were comparison of the number and percentage of patients achieving European goals (1998, 2003) for LDL-C and other lipid parameters. Patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia and a 10-year coronary heart disease risk of >20% received open label rosuvastatin treatment for 24 weeks with or without access to compliance enhancement tools. The initial daily dosage of 10 mg could be doubled at week 12. Compliance tools included: a) a starter pack for subjects containing a videotape, an educational leaflet, a passport/goal diary and details of the helpline and/or website; b) regular personalised letters to provide message reinforcement; c) a toll-free helpline and a website. The majority of patients (67%) achieved the 1998 European goal for LDL-C at week 24. 31% required an increase in dosage of rosuvastatin to 20 mg at week 12. Compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving either the 1998 or the 2003 European target for plasma lipids. Rosuvastatin was well tolerated during this study. The safety profile was comparable with other drugs of the same class. 63 patients in the 10 mg group and 58 in the 10 mg Plus group discontinued treatment. The main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (39 patients in the 10 mg group; 35 patients in the 10 mg Plus group) and loss to follow-up (13 patients in the 10 mg group; 9 patients in the 10 mg Plus group). The two most frequently reported adverse events were myalgia (34 patients, 3% respectively) and back pain (23 patients, 2% respectively). The overall rate of temporary or permanent study discontinuation due to adverse events was 9% (n = 101) in patients receiving 10 mg rosuvastatin and 3% (n = 9) in patients titrated up to 20 mg rosuvastatin. Rosuvastatin was effective in lowering LDL-C values in patients with hypercholesterolaemia to the 1998 European target at week 24. However, compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving any European targets for plasma lipids.