Treatment rationale and study design for a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus best supportive care immediately following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment.

Safety and Efficacy of the Newer Biological Therapeutics in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Biological therapies have been a major advance in RA treatment. However, remission or response is not achieved in all patients. Therefore, new drugs seem necessary. Most recent trials have focused in the development of three different groups of molecules: those against commercialized targets but minimizing side effects or improving administration, others molecules against new targets, and a third group including small molecules. Some of them have been shown to be clinically efficacious and safe in RA patients, including: two new anti-TNF therapies (golimumab and certolizumab pegol), three anti-CD (ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and a SMIP), subcutaneous abatacept, anti-IL17 therapy, tasocitinib and fostamatinib disodium. Therefore, a wide spectrum of new RA therapeutics are promising, but more studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Improvement in growth after two years of growth hormone therapy in very young children born small for gestational age and without spontaneous catch-up growth: results of a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open clinical trial.

CONTEXT GH treatment is effective in children born small for gestational age (SGA); however, its effectiveness and safety in very young SGA children is unknown. OBJECTIVE The aim was to analyze the outcome of very young SGA children treated with GH and followed for 2 yr. The results after 24 months of treatment, compared with a control group without treatment during 12 months followed by 12 months of treatment, are shown. DESIGN We performed a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open trial. SETTINGS The pediatric endocrinology departments of 14 public hospitals in Spain participated in the study. PATIENTS Seventy-six children, aged 2-5 yr born SGA and without catch-up growth, were studied. INTERVENTION Children received GH at 0.06 mg/kg.d for 2 yr (group I) or were followed for 12 months with no treatment and then treated for 12 months (group II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Age, general health status, pubertal stage, bone age, height, weight, biochemical and hormonal analyses, and adverse side effects were determined at biannual check-ups. RESULTS The mean height sd score gain for chronological age in children treated for 24 months (group I) was 2.10, whereas in those treated only during the last 12 months (group II) was 1.43. In both groups, children under 4 yr of age had the greatest gain in growth velocity. No significant acceleration of bone age or side effects related to treatment was seen. CONCLUSION Very young SGA children without spontaneous catch-up growth could benefit from GH treatment because growth was accelerated and no negative side effects were observed.