Comparative efficacies of antibiotics in a rat model of meningoencephalitis due to Listeria monocytogenes

The antibacterial activities of amoxicillin-gentamicin, trovafloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and the combination of trovafloxacin with TMP-SMX were compared in a model of meningoencephalitis due to Listeria monocytogenes in infant rats. At 22 h after intracisternal infection, the cerebrospinal fluid was cultured to document meningitis, and the treatment was started. Treatment was instituted for 48 h, and efficacy was evaluated 24 h after administration of the last dose. All tested treatment regimens exhibited significant activities in brain, liver, and blood compared to infected rats receiving saline (P < 0.001). In the brain, amoxicillin plus gentamicin was more active than all of the other regimens, and trovafloxacin was more active than TMP-SMX (bacterial titers of 4.1 +/- 0.5 log10 CFU/ml for amoxicillin-gentamicin, 5.0 +/- 0.4 log10 CFU/ml for trovafloxacin, and 5.8 +/- 0.5 log10 CFU/ml for TMP-SMX; P < 0.05). In liver, amoxicillin-gentamicin and trovafloxacin were similarly active (2.8 +/- 0.8 and 2.7 +/- 0.8 log10 CFU/ml, respectively) but more active than TMP-SMX (4.4 +/- 0. 6 log10 CFU/ml; P < 0.05). The combination of trovafloxacin with TMP-SMX did not alter the antibacterial effect in the brain, but it did reduce the effect of trovafloxacin in the liver. Amoxicillin-gentamicin was the most active therapy in this study, but the activity of trovafloxacin suggests that further studies with this drug for the treatment of Listeria infections may be warranted.

Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Cisplatin versus cisplatin plus doxorubicin for standard-risk hepatoblastoma

BACKGROUND: Preoperative cisplatin alone may be as effective as cisplatin plus doxorubicin in standard-risk hepatoblastoma (a tumor involving three or fewer sectors of the liver that is associated with an alpha-fetoprotein level of >100 ng per milliliter). METHODS: Children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma who were younger than 16 years of age were eligible for inclusion in the study. After they received one cycle of cisplatin (80 mg per square meter of body-surface area per 24 hours), we randomly assigned patients to receive cisplatin (every 14 days) or cisplatin plus doxorubicin administered in three preoperative cycles and two postoperative cycles. The primary outcome was the rate of complete resection, and the trial was powered to test the noninferiority of cisplatin alone (<10% difference in the rate of complete resection). RESULTS: Between June 1998 and December 2006, 126 patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin and 129 were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The rate of complete resection was 95% in the cisplatin-alone group and 93% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.1 to 7.0); these rates were 99% and 95%, respectively, in the per-protocol analysis. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 83% (95% CI, 77 to 90) and 95% (95% CI, 91 to 99) in the cisplatin group, and 85% (95% CI, 79 to 92) and 93% (95% CI, 88 to 98) in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group (median follow-up, 46 months). Acute grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (74.4% vs. 20.6%). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with cisplatin plus doxorubicin, cisplatin monotherapy achieved similar rates of complete resection and survival among children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma. Doxorubicin can be safely omitted from the treatment of standard-risk hepatoblastoma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003912.)

Japanese-US common-arm analysis of paclitaxel plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a model for assessing population-related pharmacogenomics

PURPOSE To explore whether population-related pharmacogenomics contribute to differences in patient outcomes between clinical trials performed in Japan and the United States, given similar study designs, eligibility criteria, staging, and treatment regimens. METHODS We prospectively designed and conducted three phase III trials (Four-Arm Cooperative Study, LC00-03, and S0003) in advanced-stage, non-small-cell lung cancer, each with a common arm of paclitaxel plus carboplatin. Genomic DNA was collected from patients in LC00-03 and S0003 who received paclitaxel (225 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 6). Genotypic variants of CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2C8, NR1I2-206, ABCB1, ERCC1, and ERCC2 were analyzed by pyrosequencing or by PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism. Results were assessed by Cox model for survival and by logistic regression for response and toxicity. Results Clinical results were similar in the two Japanese trials, and were significantly different from the US trial, for survival, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and anemia. There was a significant difference between Japanese and US patients in genotypic distribution for CYP3A4*1B (P = .01), CYP3A5*3C (P = .03), ERCC1 118 (P < .0001), ERCC2 K751Q (P < .001), and CYP2C8 R139K (P = .01). Genotypic associations were observed between CYP3A4*1B for progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.94; P = .04) and ERCC2 K751Q for response (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.83; P = .02). For grade 4 neutropenia, the HR for ABCB1 3425C-->T was 1.84 (95% CI, 0.77 to 4.48; P = .19). CONCLUSION Differences in allelic distribution for genes involved in paclitaxel disposition or DNA repair were observed between Japanese and US patients. In an exploratory analysis, genotype-related associations with patient outcomes were observed for CYP3A4*1B and ERCC2 K751Q. This common-arm approach facilitates the prospective study of population-related pharmacogenomics in which ethnic differences in antineoplastic drug disposition are anticipated.

Combination of daptomycin plus ceftriaxone is more active than vancomycin plus ceftriaxone in experimental meningitis after addition of dexamethasone

We examined the cerebrospinal fluid penetration of daptomycin after the addition of dexamethasone and its bactericidal efficacy with and without ceftriaxone in an experimental rabbit model of pneumococcal meningitis. The combination of daptomycin with ceftriaxone was the most efficacious regimen for pneumococcal meningitis. The previous addition of dexamethasone affected the antibacterial activity of daptomycin only marginally, either as monotherapy or combined with ceftriaxone, although the penetration of daptomycin into inflamed meninges was significantly reduced from 6 to 2%. Daptomycin with ceftriaxone might be a potential candidate for the empirical therapy of bacterial meningitis, although the activity of this regimen against Listeria monocytogenes remains to be demonstrated.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.