Efficacy and safety of non-hormonal remedies for vaginal dryness: open, prospective, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES To prove non-inferiority of the first non-hormonal vaginal cream in Germany, Vagisan(®) Moisturising Cream (CREAM), compared to a non-hormonal vaginal gel (GEL) for vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptom relief. METHOD This was a 12-week multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, two-period, cross-over phase-III trial. The primary endpoint was the cumulative VVA subjective symptom score of the respective treatment period. Secondary endpoints were assessment of single VVA subjective and objective symptoms, VVA objective symptom score, vaginal pH, safety parameters, overall assessment of efficacy, tolerability and evaluation of product properties. In total, 117 women were randomly allocated to either one of the two treatments, each administered for 4 weeks; 92 women were included in the per-protocol analysis (primary analysis). The main outcome measure was cumulative VVA subjective symptom score. RESULTS Regarding VVA symptom relief, results confirmed non-inferiority of CREAM compared to GEL and even indicated superiority of CREAM. Frequency and intensity of subjective symptoms and objective findings were clearly reduced, with CREAM showing better results compared to GEL. Mean VVA objective symptom score significantly decreased; improvement was significantly greater with CREAM. Vaginal pH decreased only following CREAM treatment. Tolerability was superior for CREAM: burning and itching, mostly rated as mild, occurred markedly less often with CREAM than with GEL. Overall satisfaction with treatment efficacy, tolerability and most product properties were rated significantly superior for CREAM. CONCLUSIONS Subjective and objective VVA symptoms were reliably and safely reduced by both non-hormonal topical products. However, efficacy and tolerability of CREAM were shown to be superior to GEL.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors plus chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: biologic rationale for combination strategies

Chemotherapy continues to play an essential role in the treatment of most stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In fact, within the past 5 years, this role has greatly expanded into adjuvant therapy for early-stage resected disease. Likewise, agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), particularly the tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib, have proven to be clinically active in patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. Because of these findings, it is logical to expect that combinations of these 2 classes of antineoplastic agents would prove more efficacious than either one alone. Yet 4 large randomized phase III trials of chemotherapy with or without an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor in unselected patients with advanced-stage NSCLC, altogether totaling > 4000 patients, did not demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes with the combination. Whether these negative results will be reproduced in ongoing combination studies of chemotherapy plus monoclonal antibodies directed against EGFR remain to be determined. Herein, we review recent preclinical and clinical data addressing this topic and explore the biologic rationale for developing new combination strategies based on patient selection by molecular and clinical factors, or by pharmacodynamic parameters.