Radium-223 and concomitant therapies in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an international, early access, open-label, single-arm phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported ALSYMPCA trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) than in patients treated with placebo. In this study, we investigated safety and overall survival in radium-223 treated patients in an early access programme done after the ALSYMPCA study and before regulatory approval of radium-223.

METHODS: We did an international, prospective, interventional, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed progressive bone-predominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more skeletal metastases on imaging (with no restriction as to whether they were symptomatic or asymptomatic; without visceral disease but lymph node metastases were allowed). Patients received intravenous injections of radium-223, 50 kBq/kg (current recommendation 55 kBq/kg after implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology update on April 18, 2016) every 4 weeks for up to six injections. Other concomitant anticancer therapies were allowed. Primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. The safety and efficacy analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study has been completed, and we report the final analysis here. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01618370, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16.

FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, 839 patients were enrolled from 113 sites in 14 countries. 696 patients received one or more doses of radium-223; 403 (58%) of these patients had all six planned injections. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 523 (75%) of 696 patients; any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events deemed to be related to treatment were reported in 281 (40%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia in 32 (5%) patients, thrombocytopenia in 15 (2%) patients, neutropenia in ten (1%) patients, and leucopenia in nine (1%) patients. Any grade of serious adverse events were reported in 243 (35%) patients. Median follow-up was 7·5 months (IQR 5-11) and 210 deaths were reported; median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI 13-not available [NA]). In an exploratory analysis of overall survival with predefined factors, median overall survival was longer for: patients with baseline alkaline phosphatase concentration less than the upper limit of normal (ULN; median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than for patients with an alkaline phosphatase concentration equal to or greater than the ULN (median 12 months, 11-15); patients with baseline haemoglobin levels 10 g/dL or greater (median 17 months, 14-NA) than for patients with haemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL (median 10 months, 8-14); patients with a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 (median NA, 17 months-NA) than for patients with an ECOG PS of 1 (median 13 months, 11-NA) or an ECOG PS of 2 or more (median 7 months, 5-11); and for patients with no reported baseline pain (median NA, 16 months-NA) than for those with mild pain (median 14 months, 13-NA) or moderate-severe pain (median 11 months, 9-13). Median overall survival was also longer in patients who received radium-223 plus abiraterone, enzalutamide, or both (median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than in those who did not receive these agents (median 13 months, 12-16), and in patients who received radium-223 plus denosumab (median NA, 15 months-NA) than in patients who received radium-223 without denosumab (median 13 months, 12-NA).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that radium-223 can be safely combined with abiraterone or enzalutamide, which are now both part of the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Furthermore, our findings extend to patients who were asymptomatic at baseline, unlike those enrolled in the pivotal ALSYMPCA study. The findings of prolonged survival in patients treated with concomitant abiraterone, enzalutamide, or denosumab require confirmation in prospective randomised trials.

FUNDING: Pharmaceutical Division of Bayer.

Open-label placebo treatment in chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

This randomized controlled trial was performed to investigate whether placebo effects in chronic low back pain could be harnessed ethically by adding open-label placebo (OLP) treatment to treatment as usual (TAU) for 3 weeks. Pain severity was assessed on three 0- to 10-point Numeric Rating Scales, scoring maximum pain, minimum pain, and usual pain, and a composite, primary outcome, total pain score. Our other primary outcome was back-related dysfunction, assessed on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. In an exploratory follow-up, participants on TAU received placebo pills for 3 additional weeks. We randomized 97 adults reporting persistent low back pain for more than 3 months' duration and diagnosed by a board-certified pain specialist. Eighty-three adults completed the trial. Compared to TAU, OLP elicited greater pain reduction on each of the three 0- to 10-point Numeric Rating Scales and on the 0- to 10-point composite pain scale (P < 0.001), with moderate to large effect sizes. Pain reduction on the composite Numeric Rating Scales was 1.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.0-2.0) in the OLP group and 0.2 (-0.3 to 0.8) in the TAU group. Open-label placebo treatment also reduced disability compared to TAU (P < 0.001), with a large effect size. Improvement in disability scores was 2.9 (1.7-4.0) in the OLP group and 0.0 (-1.1 to 1.2) in the TAU group. After being switched to OLP, the TAU group showed significant reductions in both pain (1.5, 0.8-2.3) and disability (3.4, 2.2-4.5). Our findings suggest that OLP pills presented in a positive context may be helpful in chronic low back pain.

Edoxaban versus enoxaparin–warfarin in patients undergoing cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial

Background Edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is non-inferior for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and is associated with less bleeding than well controlled warfarin therapy. Few safety data about edoxaban in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion are available. Methods We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint evaluation trial in 19 countries with 239 sites comparing edoxaban 60 mg per day with enoxaparin–warfarin in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion of non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The dose of edoxaban was reduced to 30 mg per day if one or more factors (creatinine clearance 15–50 mL/min, low bodyweight [≤60 kg], or concomitant use of P-glycoprotein inhibitors) were present. Block randomisation (block size four)—stratified by cardioversion approach (transoesophageal echocardiography [TEE] or not), anticoagulant experience, selected edoxaban dose, and region—was done through a voice-web system. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolic event, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety endpoint was major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Follow-up was 28 days on study drug after cardioversion plus 30 days to assess safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02072434. Findings Between March 25, 2014, and Oct 28, 2015, 2199 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive edoxaban (n=1095) or enoxaparin–warfarin (n=1104). The mean age was 64 years (SD 10·54) and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2·6 (SD 1·4). Mean time in therapeutic range on warfarin was 70·8% (SD 27·4). The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in five (<1%) patients in the edoxaban group versus 11 (1%) in the enoxaparin–warfarin group (odds ratio [OR] 0·46, 95% CI 0·12–1·43). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 16 (1%) of 1067 patients given edoxaban versus 11 (1%) of 1082 patients given enoxaparin–warfarin (OR 1·48, 95% CI 0·64–3·55). The results were independent of the TEE-guided strategy and anticoagulation status. Interpretation ENSURE-AF is the largest prospective randomised clinical trial of anticoagulation for cardioversion of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Rates of major and CRNM bleeding and thromboembolism were low in the two treatment groups. Funding Daiichi Sankyo provided financial support for the study. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd

Timing of Dose Relative to Sexual Intercourse Attempt in Previous Sildenafil Citrate Users Treated with Tadalafil: A Geographical Comparison from a Single Arm, Open-Label Study

Introduction. Previous research has demonstrated that sildenafil citrate users alter dosing-sexual attempt behavior when switched to tadalafil. The impact of geography and culture on sexual behavior with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor treatment has not been fully investigated. Aim. To describe and compare the changes in dosing-sexual attempt behavior with sildenafil citrate vs. tadalafil treatment across four distinct geographies: Asia, Australia/New Zealand (ANZ), Central Eastern Europe/Middle East (CEE/ME), and Latin America (LA). Methods. Data from a single-arm, open-label clinical trial conducted in 21 countries from November 2002 to May 2004 were used in this analysis. Men with erectile dysfunction and a history of >= 6-week prior sildenafil citrate use continued sildenafil citrate treatment for 4 weeks then switched to tadalafil for 8 weeks. Dosing instructions were provided. Main Outcomes Measures. Timing of dose and sexual intercourse was assessed through patient diaries for the final 4 weeks of each treatment period. Results. A total of 2,760 men were enrolled: Asia 15.8%; ANZ 29.4%; CEE/ME 19.7%; LA 35.1%. The median time from dosing to intercourse was significantly increased during tadalafil treatment across all geographical regions; however, the magnitude of increase differed significantly by geography (P < 0.0001). The Asian cohort demonstrated the shortest duration between dosing and sexual intercourse attempts (irrespective of drug), and altered sexual behavior the least upon switching to tadalafil. The ANZ cohort demonstrated the longest duration between dosing and sexual intercourse attempts (irrespective of drug), and altered sexual behavior the most upon switching to tadalafil. Conclusion. Men with a history of established sildenafil citrate use alter their dose-attempt behavior when treated with tadalafil irrespective of geography. However, the extent to which sexual behavior alters is not uniform across geographical regions, suggesting that dosing instructions and duration of drug effectiveness, in combination with personal and cultural preferences, may determine sexual behavior with PDE5 inhibitor use. Rubio-Aurioles E, Glina S, Abdo CHN, Hernandez-Serrano R, Rampazzo C, Sotomayor M, West TM, Gallagher GL, and Lenero E. Timing of dose relative to sexual intercourse attempt in previous sildenafil citrate users treated with tadalafil: A geographical comparison from a single arm, open-label study. J Sex Med 2009;6:2836-2850.

Aripiprazole for Patients with Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder: An Open-Label, Randomized, Study Versus Haloperidol

Introduction: Aripiprazole, a dopamine D(2) receptor partial agonist, has also partial agonist activity at serotonin (5-HT)(1A) receptors and antagonist activity at 5-HT(2A) receptors. Methods: In this 8-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, flexible-dose study, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized to aripiprazole 15-30 mg/day or haloperidol 10-15 mg/day. Results: Patients treated with both aripiprazole and haloperidol improved from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total, positive, and negative scores as well as in Clinical Global Impressions scores (all P<.001). At the end of the study, the percentage of patients classified as responders-according to >= 40% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale negative subscale score-was significantly higher in the aripiprazole group (20%) than in the haloperidol group (0%) (P<.05). Additionally, a higher number of patients receiving haloperidol required more anticholinergic medications (P<.001) than aripiprazole-treated patients, whereas more aripiprazole (45.5%) than haloperidol-treated patients (12.9%) required benzodiazepines (P=.002). At endpoint, rates of preference of medication were higher in the aripiprazole group (63.2%) than in the haloperidol group (21.7%), as expressed by patients and caregivers (P=.001). Conclusion: Aripiprazole and haloperidol had similar efficacy in terms of reduction of overall psychopathology. Although aripiprazole has been demonstrated to be superior concerning negative symptoms and in terms of tolerability (extrapyramidal symptoms) and preferred by patients and caregivers than haloperidol, significantly more aripiprazole-treated patients required benzodiazepines.

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.

Two cilengitide regimens in combination with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and unmethylated MGMT gene promoter: results of the open-label, controlled, randomized phase II CORE study.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for patients with glioblastoma remain poor, particularly for patients with unmethylated O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial investigated the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide combined with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an unmethylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: Overall, 265 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to standard cilengitide (2000 mg 2×/wk; n = 88), intensive cilengitide (2000 mg 5×/wk during wk 1-6, thereafter 2×/wk; n = 88), or a control arm (chemoradiotherapy alone; n = 89). Cilengitide was administered intravenously in combination with daily temozolomide (TMZ) and concomitant radiotherapy (RT; wk 1-6), followed by TMZ maintenance therapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 16.3 months in the standard cilengitide arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.686; 95% CI: 0.484, 0.972; P = .032) and 14.5 months in the intensive cilengitide arm (HR, 0.858; 95% CI: 0.612, 1.204; P = .3771) versus 13.4 months in the control arm. Median progression-free survival assessed per independent review committee was 5.6 months (HR, 0.822; 95% CI: 0.595, 1.134) and 5.9 months (HR, 0.794; 95% CI: 0.575, 1.096) in the standard and intensive cilengitide arms, respectively, versus 4.1 months in the control arm. Cilengitide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and intensive cilengitide dose regimens were well tolerated in combination with TMZ/RT→TMZ. Inconsistent overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes and a limited sample size did not allow firm conclusions regarding clinical efficacy in this exploratory phase II study.

STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a comprehensive treatment strategy involving several lines of therapy, maintenance, salvage surgery, and treatment-free intervals. Besides chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan), molecular-targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept, regorafenib) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents (cetuximab, panitumumab) have become available. Ultimately, given the increasing cost of new active compounds, new strategy trials are needed to define the optimal use and the best sequencing of these agents. Such new clinical trials require alternative endpoints that can capture the effect of several treatment lines and be measured earlier than overall survival to help shorten the duration and reduce the size and cost of trials. METHODS/DESIGN: STRATEGIC-1 is an international, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial designed to determine an optimally personalized treatment sequence of the available treatment modalities in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. Two standard treatment strategies are compared: first-line FOLFIRI-cetuximab, followed by oxaliplatin-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Arm A) vs. first-line OPTIMOX-bevacizumab, followed by irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab, and by an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody with or without irinotecan as third-line treatment (Arm B). The primary endpoint is duration of disease control. A total of 500 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies. DISCUSSION: The STRATEGIC-1 trial is designed to give global information on the therapeutic sequences in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC that in turn is likely to have a significant impact on the management of this patient population. The trial is open for inclusion since August 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: STRATEGIC-1 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01910610, 23 July, 2013. STRATEGIC-1 is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2013-001928-19, 25 April, 2013.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Randomised, multicentre, phase III, open-label study of alectinib vs crizotinib in treatment-naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced NSCLC (ALEX study).

Background: In ∼5% of advanced NSCLC tumours, ALK tyrosine kinase is constitutively activated after translocation of ALK. ALK+ NSCLC was shown to be highly sensitive to the first approved ALK inhibitor, crizotinib. However, all pts eventually relapse on crizotinib mainly due to secondary ALK mutations/amplification or CNS metastases. Alectinib is a highly selective, potent, oral next-generation ALK inhibitor. Clinical phase II alectinib data in 46 crizotinib-naïve pts with ALK+ NSCLC reported an objective response rate (ORR) of 93.5% and a 1-year progression-free rate of 83% (95% CI: 68-92) (Inoue et al. J Thorac Oncol 2013). CNS activity was seen: of 14 pts with baseline brain metastasis, 11 had prior CNS radiation, 9 of these experienced CNS and systemic PFS of >12 months; of the 3 pts without prior CNS radiation, 2 were >15 months progression free. Trial design: Randomised, multicentre, phase III, open-label study in pts with treatment-naïve ALK+ advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC. All pts must provide pretreatment tumour tissue to confirm ALK rearrangement (by IHC). Pts (∼286 from ∼180 centres, ∼30 countries worldwide) will be randomised to alectinib (600mg oral bid, with food) or crizotinib (250mg oral bid, with/without food) until disease progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Stratification factors are: ECOG PS (0/1 vs 2), race (Asian vs non-Asian), baseline CNS metastases (yes vs no). Primary endpoint: PFS by investigators (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints: PFS by Independent Review Committee (IRC); ORR; duration of response; OS; safety; pharmacokinetics; quality of life. Additionally, time to CNS progression will be evaluated (MRI) for the first time in a prospective randomised NSCLC trial as a secondary endpoint. Pts with isolated asymptomatic CNS progression will be allowed to continue treatment beyond documented progression until systemic PD and/or symptomatic CNS progression, according to investigator opinion. Time to CNS progression will be retrospectively assessed by the IRC using two separate criteria, RECIST and RANO. Further details: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02075840). Disclosure: T.S.K. Mok: Advisory boards: AZ, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Eisai, BMS, AVEO, Pfizer, Taiho, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GSK Biologicals, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Janssen, BioMarin; board of directors: IASLC; corporate sponsored research: AZ; M. Perol: Advisory boards: Roche; S.I. Ou: Consulting: Pfizer, Chugai, Genentech Speaker Bureau: Pfizer, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim; I. Bara: Employee: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; V. Henschel: Employee and stock: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; D.R. Camidge: Honoraria: Roche/Genentech. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Effectiveness of artemether-lumefantrine provided by community health workers in under-five children with uncomplicated malaria in rural Tanzania : an open label prospective study

Background: Home-management of malaria (HMM) strategy improves early access of anti-malarial medicines to high-risk groups in remote areas of sub-Saharan Africa. However, limited data are available on the effectiveness of using artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) within the HMM strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of artemether-lumefantrine (AL), presently the most favoured ACT in Africa, in under-five children with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Tanzania, when provided by community health workers (CHWs) and administered unsupervised by parents or guardians at home. Methods: An open label, single arm prospective study was conducted in two rural villages with high malaria transmission in Kibaha District, Tanzania. Children presenting to CHWs with uncomplicated fever and a positive rapid malaria diagnostic test (RDT) were provisionally enrolled and provided AL for unsupervised treatment at home. Patients with microscopy confirmed P. falciparum parasitaemia were definitely enrolled and reviewed weekly by the CHWs during 42 days. Primary outcome measure was PCR corrected parasitological cure rate by day 42, as estimated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00454961. Results: A total of 244 febrile children were enrolled between March-August 2007. Two patients were lost to follow up on day 14, and one patient withdrew consent on day 21. Some 141/241 (58.5%) patients had recurrent infection during follow-up, of whom 14 had recrudescence. The PCR corrected cure rate by day 42 was 93.0% (95% CI 88.3%-95.9%). The median lumefantrine concentration was statistically significantly lower in patients with recrudescence (97 ng/mL [IQR 0-234]; n = 10) compared with reinfections (205 ng/mL [114-390]; n = 92), or no parasite reappearance (217 [121-374] ng/mL; n = 70; p <= 0.046). Conclusions: Provision of AL by CHWs for unsupervised malaria treatment at home was highly effective, which provides evidence base for scaling-up implementation of HMM with AL in Tanzania.

Change in pain severity with open label venlafaxine use in patients with a depressive symptomatology: an observational study in primary care

PURPOSE: Venlafaxine has shown benefit in the treatment of depression and pain. Worldwide data are extensively lacking investigating the outcome of chronic pain patients with depressive symptoms treated by venlafaxine in the primary care setting. This observational study aimed to elucidate the efficacy of venlafaxine and its prescription by Swiss primary care physicians and psychiatrists in patients with chronic pain and depressive symptomatology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We studied 505 patients with depressive symptoms suffering from chronic pain in a prospective naturalistic Swiss community based observational trial with venlafaxine in primary care. These patients have been treated with venlafaxine by 122 physicians, namely psychiatrists, general practitioners, and internists. RESULTS: On average, patients were treated with 143+/-75 mg (0-450 mg) venlafaxine daily for a follow-up of three months. Venlafaxine proved to be beneficial in the treatment of both depressive symptoms and chronic pain. DISCUSSION: Although side effects were absent in most patients, physicians might have frequently omitted satisfactory response rate of depression by underdosing venlafaxine. Our results reflect the complexity in the treatment of chronic pain in patients with depressive symptoms in primary care. CONCLUSION: Further randomized dose-finding studies are needed to learn more about the appropriate dosage in treating depression and comorbid pain with venlafaxine.

Open-label study of faldaprevir plus peginterferon and ribavirin in hepatitis C virus genotype 1-infected patients who failed placebo plus peginterferon and ribavirin.

Faldaprevir, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, was evaluated in HCV genotype 1-infected patients who failed peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) treatment during one of three prior faldaprevir trials. Patients who received placebo plus PegIFN/RBV and had virological failure during a prior trial were enrolled and treated in two cohorts: prior relapsers (n = 43) and prior nonresponders (null responders, partial responders and patients with breakthrough; n = 75). Both cohorts received faldaprevir 240 mg once daily plus PegIFN/RBV for 24 weeks. Prior relapsers with early treatment success (ETS; HCV RNA <25 IU/mL detectable or undetectable at week 4 and <25 IU/mL undetectable at week 8) stopped treatment at week 24. Others received PegIFN/RBV through week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL undetectable) 12 weeks post treatment (SVR12). More prior nonresponders than prior relapsers had baseline HCV RNA ≥800 000 IU/mL (80% vs 58%) and a non-CC IL28B genotype (91% vs 70%). Rates of SVR12 (95% CI) were 95.3% (89.1, 100.0) among prior relapsers and 54.7% (43.4, 65.9) among prior nonresponders; corresponding ETS rates were 97.7% and 65.3%. Adverse events led to faldaprevir discontinuations in 3% of patients. The most common Division of AIDS Grade ≥2 adverse events were anaemia (13%), nausea (10%) and hyperbilirubinaemia (9%). In conclusion, faldaprevir plus PegIFN/RBV achieved clinically meaningful SVR12 rates in patients who failed PegIFN/RBV in a prior trial, with response rates higher among prior relapsers than among prior nonresponders. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of faldaprevir.

Bioequivalence Evaluation of Single Doses of Two Tramadol Formulations: A Randomized, Open-Label, Two-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Brazilian Volunteers

Background: Tramadol is a well tolerated and effective analgesic used to treat moderate to severe pain. Several generic formulations of tramadol are available in Brazil; however, published information regarding their bioequivalence in the Brazilian population is not available. A study was designed for Brazilian regulatory authorities to allow marketing of a generic formulation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the bioequivalence of 2 commercial tablet preparations containing tramadol 100 mg marketed for use in Brazil. Methods: A randomized, open-label, 2 x 2 crossover study was performed in healthy Brazilian volunteers under fasting conditions with a washout period of 12 days. Two tablet formulations of tramadol 100 mg (test and reference formulations) were administered as a single oral dose, and blood samples were collected over 24 hours. Tramadol plasma concentrations were quantified using a validated HPLC method. A plasma concentration time profile was generated for each volunteer and then mean values were determined, from which C(max), T(max), AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), k(e), and t(1/2) were calculated using a noncompartmental model. Bioequivalence between the products was determined by calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity) values for the test and reference products using log-transformed data. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring vital signs (temperature, blood pressure, heart rate), laboratory tests (hematology, blood biochemistry, hepatic function, urinalysis), and interviews with the volunteers before medication administration and every 2 hours during the study. Results: Twenty-six healthy volunteers (13 men, 13 women) were enrolled in and completed the study. Mean (SD) age was 30 (6.8) years (range, 21-44 years), mean weight was 64 (8.3) kg (range, 53-79 kg), and mean height was 166 (6.4) cm (range, 155-178 cm). The 90% CIs for the ratios of C(max) (1.01-1.17), AUC(0-t) (1.00-1.13), and AUC(0-infinity) (1.00-1.14) values for the test and reference products fell within the interval of 0.80 to 1.25 proposed by most regulatory agencies, including the Brazilian regulatory body. No clinically important adverse effects were reported; only mild somnolence was reported by 4 volunteers and mild headaches by 5 volunteers, and there was no need to use medication to treat these symptoms. Conclusion: Pharmacokinetic analysis in these healthy Brazilian volunteers suggested that the test and reference formulations of tramadol 100-mg tablets met the regulatory requirements to assume bio-equivalence based on the Brazilian regulatory definition. (Clin Ther 2010;32:758-765) (C) 2010 Excerpta Medica Inc.