Unanswered clinical questions in the management of cardiometabolic risk in the elderly: a statement of the Spanish society of internal medicine.

BACKGROUND Despite the progressive increase in life expectancy and the relationship between aging with multi-morbidities and the increased use of healthcare resources, current clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on cardiometabolic risk cannot be adequately applied to elderly subjects with multiple chronic conditions. Its management frequently becomes complicated by both, an excessive use of medications that may lead to overtreatment, drug interactions and increased toxicity, and errors in dosage and non-compliance. Concerned by this gap, the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine created a group of independent experts on cardiometabolic risk who discussed what they considered to be unanswered questions in the management of elderly patients. DISCUSSION Current guidelines do not specifically address the problem of elderly with multiple chronic conditions. For this reason, the combined use of the limited available evidence, clinical experience and common sense, could all help us to address this unmet need. In very old people, life expectancy and functionality are the most important factors for guiding potential treatments. Their higher propensity to develop serious adverse events and their shorter lifespan could prevent them from obtaining the potential benefits of the interventions administered. SUMMARY In this document, experts on cardiometabolic risk factors have established a number of consensual recommendations that have taken into account international guidelines and clinical experience, and have also considered the more effective use of healthcare resources. This document is intended to provide general recommendations for clinicians and to promote the effective use of procedures and medications.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Lipid changes in HIV-patients switching to the coformulated single tablet FTC/RPV/TDF (Eviplera®). Efficacy and safety analysis. GeSida Study 8114.

INTRODUCTION Rilpivirine (RPV) has a better lipid profile than efavirenz (EFV) in naïve patients (1). Switching to RPV may be convenient for many patients, while maintaining a good immunovirological control (2). The aim of this study was to analyze lipid changes in HIV-patients at 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera® (emtricitabine/RPV/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [FTC/RPV/TDF]). MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective, multicentre study of a cohort of asymptomatic HIV-patients who switched from a regimen based on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI)+protease inhibitor (PI)/non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or ritonavir boosted PI monotherapy to Eviplera® during February-December, 2013; all had undetectable HIV viral load for ≥3 months prior to switching. Patients with previous failures on antiretroviral therapy (ART) including TDF and/or FTC/3TC, with genotype tests showing resistance to components of Eviplera®, or who had changed the third drug of the ART during the study period were excluded. Changes in lipid profile and cardiovascular risk (CVR), and efficacy and safety at 24 weeks were analyzed. RESULTS Among 305 patients included in the study, 298 were analyzed (7 cases were excluded due to lack of data). Men 81.2%, mean age 44.5 years, 75.8% of HIV sexually transmitted. 233 (78.2%) patients switched from a regimen based on 2 NRTI+NNRTI (90.5% EFV/FTC/TDF). The most frequent reasons for switching were central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (31.0%), convenience (27.6%) and metabolic disorders (23.2%). At this time, 293 patients have reached 24 weeks: 281 (95.9%) have continued Eviplera®, 6 stopped it (3 adverse events, 2 virologic failures, 1 discontinuation) and 6 have been lost to follow up. Lipid profiles of 283 cases were available at 24 weeks and mean (mg/dL) baseline vs 24 weeks are: total cholesterol (193 vs 169; p=0.0001), HDL-c (49 vs 45; p=0.0001), LDL-c (114 vs 103; p=0.001), tryglycerides (158 vs 115; p=0.0001), total cholesterol to HDL-c ratio (4.2 vs 4.1; p=0.3). CVR decreased (8.7 vs 7.5%; p= 0.0001). CD4 counts were similar to baseline (653 vs 674 cells/µL; p=0.08), and 274 (96.8%) patients maintained viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS At 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera®, lipid profile and CVR improved while maintaining a good immunovirological control. Most subjects switched to Eviplera® from a regimen based on NNRTI, mainly EFV/FTC/TDF. CNS adverse events, convenience and metabolic disorders were the most frequent reasons for switching.

Dapagliflozina

Dapagliflozin is a new oral antidiabetic agent whose mechanism of action increases renal glucose excretion, independently of insulin secretion or insulin action. The efficacy of dapagliflozin is dependent on renal function. The use of dapagliflozin has been licensed to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as: - monotherapy when diet and exercise alone do not provide adequate glycaemic control in patients for whom the use of metformin is considered inappropriate due to intolerance. - Add-on combination therapy with other glucose-lowering agents including insulin, when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. Funding has been restricted to the use of dapagliflozin, prior approval, as dual therapy in combination with metformin. This report aims to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, rate the added therapeutic value of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify its current place in therapy. A systematic literature search was carried out, for the purpose of this evaluation, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and IDIS databases as well as other secondary sources of evidence-based medicine, therapeutic bulletins and national and international drug agencies. Following the critical reading and analysis of the selected articles, a summary is made out of the scientific evidence available, using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Only one randomised clinical trial, out of the ten trials found, was considered to be a suitable comparison (versus a dual therapy in combination with the sulfonylurea glipizide in patients inadequately controlled with metformin, diet and exercise). No trials have evaluated variables of relevance to patients, except for safety variables. The main efficacy variable in the trials was the change from baseline in HbA1c, except for a study which evaluated the change from baseline in total body weight as main variable. Baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trials significantly differ from those of the population with diabetes in our society which tend to be of an older age and have a longer history of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The major limitation of dapagliflozin derives from its mechanism of action, since its efficacy decreases as renal function declines. The use of dapagliflozin is not recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment ((CrCl<60ml/min or GFG <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) nor in elderly patients, in which a decrease in renal function can be expected. The assessment of safety includes the incidence and rate of discontinuations due to adverse events, episodes of hypoglycaemia, signs or symptoms of genital and urinary tract infections, dehydration, hypovolaemia and hypotension. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies are to be carried out to clarify the long-term effects of dapagliflozin on renal function and the potential effect in the development of breast and bladder tumours. Dapagliflozin as monotherapy has not been evaluated against adequate comparators (sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, gliptins). In combination therapy with metformin, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, resulting in a mean reduction of 0.52% in HbA1c, with a difference of 0.00 among both groups (95% CI: -0.11 a 0.11). There are no comparative data against other second-line treatment options. As shown in the studies, the overall incidence of adverse events with dapagliflozin as monotherapy (21.5%) was similar to that observed with placebo, and greater to that observed with metformin (15.4%). Hypoglycaemia of any type was the adverse event more frequently reported. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events observed in most of the studies was low. The overall incidence of adverse events observed in the study that compared dapagliflozin+metformin against glipizide+metformin was similar for both groups (27%) and incidence of hypoglycaemic events with dapagliflozin (3.5%) was significantly lower to that observed with glipizide (40.8%). Reductions of body weight of about 2 to 3 kg and a slight decrease in blood pressure (1 to 5 mmHg) have been observed in all studies in the groups treated with dapagliflozin together with diet and exercise. Dosing scheme (every 24 hours) is similar to other oral antidiabetic agents and its cost is similar to that for gliptines and higher to that for sulfonylureas or generic pioglitazone. Funding has been limited to the use of dapagliflozin as dual therapy regimen in combination with metformin as an option for patients with contraindication or intolerance to sulfonylureas, such a those experiencing frequent hypoglycaemic events, weight loss associated risks, as long as they are under 75 years of age and have no moderate to severe renal impairment. In the light of the above, we consider dapagliflozin means no therapeutic innovation in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus over other therapeutic alternatives available.

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).