Freedom Trial First-Year Extension: Results from 4 Years of Denosumab Exposure in Women with Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Aims: To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab (DMAb) for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in an open-label extension to the 3-year FREEDOM study.1Methods: All women who completed the FREEDOM study were eligible to enter a long-term open-label extension (up to 10 years). After providing informed consent, participants received 6-monthly subcutaneous injections of DMAb (60 mg). Here we report data from the first year of followup. For women randomized to DMAb in the FREEDOM study ('long-term group'), this represents up to 48 months of DMAb exposure (eight 6-monthly injections). For those randomized to placebo ('de novo group') the data are from up to 12 months of exposure (two injections). All participants continued to take calcium (1 g) and vitamin D (≥400 IU) supplements daily. Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) are reported for subjects enrolled in the extension. No formal statistical testing was planned for this interim report. P-values are descriptive.Results: Overall, 4,550 eligible women (70.2%) who completed the FREEDOM study entered the open-label extension study (long-term, n=2,343; de novo, n=2,207). During the first year of the extension, lumbar spine (LS) BMD in the long-term group further increased by 2.0% (12.1% increase vs. FREEDOM baseline at 48 months), and total hip (TH) BMD further increased by 0.8% (6.5% increase at 48 months) (p<0.0001 for both BMD gains during year 4; Fig. 1). During the first year of the extension, LS and TH BMD increased by 5.4% and 3.0%, respectively in the de novo group (both p<0.0001). After DMAb initiation, serum C-telopeptide (CTX) in the de novo group decreased rapidly and similarly to the long-term group (Fig. 2). Reductions in BTMs continue to attenuate at the end of the dosing interval as previously reported. Adverse event (AE) rates were similar (70.4% of women in the longterm group and 67.9% in the de novo group). Serious Aes were also similar (9.8% and 11.2% of women, respectively). During year 4, osteoporotic nonvertebral fractures were reported in 31 women in the long-term group and 51 in the denovo group.Fig. 1. Percentage change in BMD with denosumab for4 years (long-term) or 1 year (de novo)Fig. 2. Percentage change in sCTX over timeConclusions: These interim results suggest that continuation of DMAb treatment through 48 months is associated with further significant increases in spine and hip BMD with sustained reduction of bone turnover. The de-novo treatment group results confirm the first year active treatment findings previously reported1.Acknowledgements: Amgen Inc. sponsored this study. Figure ©2010, American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used by permission, all rights reserved. Disclosure of Interest: H. Bone Grant/Research Support from: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nordic Bioscience, Novartis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Consultant/Speaker's bureau/ Advisory activities with: Amgen, Merck, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Zelos, S. Papapoulos Consultant/Speaker's bureau/ Advisory activities with: Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Procter and Gamble, GSK, M.-L. Brandi Grant/Research Support from: MSD, GSK, Nycomed, NPS, Amgen, J. Brown Grant/Research Support from: Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant/ Speaker's bureau/Advisory activities with: Abbott, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Warner Chilcott,, R. Chapurlat Grant/Research Support from: Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Warner-Chilcott, Novartis, Merck, Consultant/Speaker's bureau/Advisory activities with: Servier, Novartis, Amgen, E. Czerwinski: None Declared, N. Daizadeh Employee of: Amgen Inc., Stock ownership or royalties of: Amgen Inc., A. Grauer Employee of: Amgen Inc., Stock ownership or royalties of: Amgen Inc., C. Haller Employee of: Amgen Inc., Stock ownership or royalties of: Amgen Inc., M.-A. Krieg: None Declared, C. Libanati Employee of: Amgen Inc., Stock ownership or royalties of: Amgen Inc., Z. Man Grant/Research Support from: Amgen, D. Mellström: None Declared, S. Radominski Grant/Research Support from: Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, J.-Y. Reginster Grant/Research Support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Rottapharm, Teva, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Servier, Consultant/Speaker's bureau/ Advisory activities with: Servier, Novartis, Negma, Lilly,Wyeth, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merckle, Nycomed, NPS, Theramex, UCB, Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, Rottapharm, IBSA, Genvrier, Teijin, Teva, Ebewee Pharma, Zodiac, Analis, Theramex, Novo-Nordisk, H. Resch: None Declared, J. A. Román Grant/Research Support from: Roche, Pharma, C. Roux Grant/Research Support from: Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Servier, Roche, Consultant/ Speaker's bureau/Advisory activities with: Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Servier, Roche, S. Cummings Grant/ Research Support from: Amgen, Lilly, Consultant/Speaker's bureau/Advisory activities with: Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck

Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin monotherapy in treating MRSA: protocol of a multicentre, randomised, phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION Despite the availability of new antibiotics such as daptomycin, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia continues to be associated with high clinical failure rates. Combination therapy has been proposed as an alternative to improve outcomes but there is a lack of clinical studies. The study aims to demonstrate that combination of daptomycin plus fosfomycin achieves higher clinical success rates in the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia than daptomycin alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre open-label, randomised phase III study. Adult patients hospitalised with MRSA bacteraemia will be randomly assigned (1:1) to group 1: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous; or group 2: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous plus fosfomycin 2 gr/6 g intravenous. The main outcome will be treatment response at week 6 after stopping therapy (test-of-cure (TOC) visit). This is a composite variable with two values: Treatment success: resolution of clinical signs and symptoms (clinical success) and negative blood cultures (microbiological success) at the TOC visit. Treatment failure: if any of the following conditions apply: (1) lack of clinical improvement at 72 h or more after starting therapy; (2) persistent bacteraemia (positive blood cultures on day 7); (3) therapy is discontinued early due to adverse effects or for some other reason based on clinical judgement; (4) relapse of MRSA bacteraemia before the TOC visit; (5) death for any reason before the TOC visit. Assuming a 60% cure rate with daptomycin and a 20% difference in cure rates between the two groups, 103 patients will be needed for each group (α:0.05, ß: 0.2). Statistical analysis will be based on intention to treat, as well as per protocol and safety analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The protocol was approved by the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (AEMPS). The sponsor commits itself to publishing the data in first quartile peer-review journals within 12 months of the completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01898338.

The Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in acute stroke treatment, basilar artery occlusion (BAO) is associated with a death or disability rate of close to 70%. Randomised trials have shown the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) given within 4.5 h and have shown promising results of intra-arterial thrombolysis given within 6 h of symptom onset of acute ischaemic stroke, but these results do not directly apply to patients with an acute BAO because only few, if any, of these patients were included in randomised acute stroke trials.Recently the results of the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS), a prospective registry of patients with acute symptomatic BAO challenged the often-held assumption that intra-arterial treatment (IAT) is superior to IVT. Our observations in the BASICS registry underscore that we continue to lack a proven treatment modality for patients with an acute BAO and that current clinical practice varies widely. DESIGN: BASICS is a randomised controlled, multicentre, open label, phase III intervention trial with blinded outcome assessment, investigating the efficacy and safety of additional IAT after IVT in patients with BAO. The trial targets to include 750 patients, aged 18 to 85 years, with CT angiography or MR angiography confirmed BAO treated with IVT. Patients will be randomised between additional IAT followed by optimal medical care versus optimal medical care alone. IVT has to be initiated within 4.5 h from estimated time of BAO and IAT within 6 h. The primary outcome parameter will be favourable outcome at day 90 defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3. DISCUSSION: The BASICS registry was observational and has all the limitations of a non-randomised study. As the IAT approach becomes increasingly available and frequently utilised an adequately powered randomised controlled phase III trial investigating the added value of this therapy in patients with an acute symptomatic BAO is needed (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01717755).

Fosfomycin versus meropenem in bacteraemic urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (FOREST): study protocol for an investigator-driven randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION Finding therapeutic alternatives to carbapenems in infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) is imperative. Although fosfomycin was discovered more than 40 years ago, it was not investigated in accordance with current standards and so is not used in clinical practice except in desperate situations. It is one of the so-called neglected antibiotics of high potential interest for the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of intravenous fosfomycin with regard to meropenem for treating bacteraemic urinary tract infections (UTI) caused by ESBL-EC. This is a 'real practice' multicentre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial, designed to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy, and safety of intravenous fosfomycin (4 g/6 h) and meropenem (1 g/8 h) as targeted therapy for this infection; a change to oral therapy is permitted after 5 days in both arms, in accordance with predetermined options. The study design follows the latest recommendations for designing trials investigating new options for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Secondary objectives include the study of fosfomycin concentrations in plasma and the impact of both drugs on intestinal colonisation by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval was obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Biomedical Research (Referral Ethics Committee), which obtained approval from the local ethics committees at all participating sites in Spain (22 sites). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION This project is proposed as an initial step in the investigation of an orphan antimicrobial of low cost with high potential as a therapeutic alternative in common infections such as UTI in selected patients. These results may have a major impact on the use of antibiotics and the development of new projects with this drug, whether as monotherapy or combination therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02142751. EudraCT no: 2013-002922-21. Protocol V.1.1 dated 14 March 2014.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

Five-Year Denosumab Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: Results from the first two Years of the Freedom Trial Extension

Objectives : The FREEDOM trial1 open-label extension is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab for up to 10 years. We report the results from the first 2 years of the extension, representing up to 5 years of denosumab exposure.Materials/Methods : Postmenopausal women enrolled in the extension previously completed FREEDOM. During the extension, all women receive denosumab (60 mg) every 6 months and calcium and vitamin D daily. For the FREEDOM denosumab group, the data reflect 5 years of denosumab treatment (long-term group). For the FREEDOM placebo group, the data reflect 2 years of denosumab treatment (de novo group). P-values are descriptive.Results : There were 4550 (70.2%) FREEDOM women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 de novo). During the 4th and 5th years of denosumab treatment, the long-term group had further 1.9% and 1.7% increases in lumbar spine BMD and further 0.7% and 0.6% increases in total hip BMD (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). Total BMD increases with 5-year denosumab treatment were 13.7% (lumbar spine) and 7.0% (total hip). In the de novo group, BMD increased during the first 2 years of denosumab treatment by 7.9% (lumbar spine) and 4.1% (total hip) (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). After denosumab administration, serum CTX was rapidly and maximally reduced in both groups with the characteristic attenuation observed at the end of the dosing interval, as previously reported.2 Incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were low and below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group. Adverse event reports were similar for both groups: in the long-term group, 83.4% reported AEs and 18.9% were serious. In the de novo group, the percentages were 82.8% and 19.4%, respectively. In FREEDOM, the respective percentages were 92.8% and 25.8% in the denosumab group and 93.1% and 25.1% in the placebo group. Two subjects in the de novo group had AEs adjudicated to ONJ which healed without further complications ; one resolved within the 6-month dosing interval and denosumab was continued. There were no atypical femoral fractures.Conclusions : Denosumab treatment for 5 years was well-tolerated and continued to significantly reduce CTX and significantly increase BMD. Reference: 1)Cummings;NEJM;2009;361:756, 2)Eastell;JBMR;2010; doi-10.1002/jbmr.251 Disclosure of Interest: This study was funded by Amgen; S Papapoulos: Consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, GSK, and Wyeth; R Chapurlat: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, sanofi-aventis, Roche, Servier, and Warner Chilcott;ML Brandi: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lily, GSK, MSD, NPS, Nycomed, Roche, Servier, and Stroder; JP Brown: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Abott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Warner Chilcott; E Czerwinski: Research grants from Amgen, Astrazeneca, Danone Research, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SantoSolve AS, and Servier; N Daizadeh, A Grauer, C Libanati: Employed by Amgen and own Amgen stocks or stock options; M-A Krieg, D Mellstrom, H Resch: None; S Radominski: Research grants from Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Aventis; Z Man: Lecture fees and/or consulting fees from Merck, Novartis, Roche, and sanofi-aventis. Novartis steering committee member; JA Roman: Research grants from Roche; J-Y Reginster: Research grants, consulting fees, and/or lecture fees from Amgen, Analis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ebewee Pharma, Genevrier, GSK, IBSA, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Negma, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Nycomed, NPS, Roche, Rottapharm, Servier, Teijin, Teva, Theramex, UCB, Wyeth, and Zodiac; C Roux: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Servier, and Roche; SR Cummings: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Merck; HG Bone: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nordic Bioscience, Novartis, Takeda, and Zelos

A phase 2 randomized trial of radiotherapy (RT) plus panitumumab compared to chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): interim pooled safety analysis

Background: Panitumumab (pmab), a fully human monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), is indicated as monotherapy for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This ongoing study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of pmab in combination with radiotherapy (PRT) compared to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as initial treatment of unresected, locally advanced SCCHN (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00547157). Methods: This is a phase 2, open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Eligible patients (pts) were randomized 2:3 to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of RT or pmab 9.0 mg/kg on days 1, 22, and 43. Accelerated RT (70 to 72 Gy − delivered over 6 to 6.5 weeks) was planned for all pts and was delivered either by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality or by three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) modality. The primary endpoint is local-regional control (LRC) rate at 2 years. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, and safety. An external, independent data monitoring committee conducts planned safety and efficacy reviews during the course of the trial. Results: Pooled data from this planned interim safety analysis includes the first 52 of the 150 planned pts; 44 (84.6%) are male; median (range) age is 57 (33−77) years; ECOG PS 0: 65%, PS 1: 35%; 20 (39%) pts received IMRT, and 32 (61%) pts received 3D-CRT. Fifty (96%) pts completed RT, and 50 pts received RT per protocol without a major deviation. The median (range) total RT dose administered was 72 (64−74) Gy. The most common grade _ 3 adverse events graded using the CTCAE version 3.0 are shown (Table). Conclusions: After the interim safety analysis, CONCERT-2 continues per protocol. Study enrollment is estimated to be completed by October 2009.

Reticulocyte dynamic and hemoglobin variability in hemodialysis patients treated with Darbepoetin alfa and C.E.R.A.: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In a simulation based on a pharmacokinetic model we demonstrated that increasing the erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) half-life or shortening their administration interval decreases hemoglobin variability. The benefit of reducing the administration interval was however lessened by the variability induced by more frequent dosage adjustments. The purpose of this study was to analyze the reticulocyte and hemoglobin kinetics and variability under different ESAs and administration intervals in a collective of chronic hemodialysis patients. METHODS: The study was designed as an open-label, randomized, four-period cross-over investigation, including 30 patients under chronic hemodialysis at the regional hospital of Locarno (Switzerland) in February 2010 and lasting 2 years. Four subcutaneous treatment strategies (C.E.R.A. every 4 weeks Q4W and every 2 weeks Q2W, Darbepoetin alfa Q4W and Q2W) were compared with each other. The mean square successive difference of hemoglobin, reticulocyte count and ESAs dose was used to quantify variability. We distinguished a short- and a long-term variability based respectively on the weekly and monthly successive difference. RESULTS: No difference was found in the mean values of biological parameters (hemoglobin, reticulocytes, and ferritin) between the 4 strategies. ESAs type did not affect hemoglobin and reticulocyte variability, but C.E.R.A induced a more sustained reticulocytes response over time and increased the risk of hemoglobin overshooting (OR 2.7, p = 0.01). Shortening the administration interval lessened the amplitude of reticulocyte count fluctuations but resulted in more frequent ESAs dose adjustments and in amplified reticulocyte and hemoglobin variability. Q2W administration interval was however more favorable in terms of ESAs dose, allowing a 38% C.E.R.A. dose reduction, and no increase of Darbepoetin alfa. CONCLUSIONS: The reticulocyte dynamic was a more sensitive marker of time instability of the hemoglobin response under ESAs therapy. The ESAs administration interval had a greater impact on hemoglobin variability than the ESAs type. The more protracted reticulocyte response induced by C.E.R.A. could explain both, the observed higher risk of overshoot and the significant increase in efficacy when shortening its administration interval.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01666301.

Carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy compared with monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: IFCT-0501 randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is recommended to treat advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in fit, non-elderly adults, but monotherapy is recommended for patients older than 70 years. We compared a carboplatin and paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy regimen with monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised trial we recruited patients aged 70-89 years with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and WHO performance status scores of 0-2. Patients received either four cycles (3 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment) of carboplatin (on day 1) plus paclitaxel (on days 1, 8, and 15) or five cycles (2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment) of vinorelbine or gemcitabine monotherapy. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation method. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number NCT00298415. FINDINGS: 451 patients were enrolled. 226 were randomly assigned monotherapy and 225 doublet chemotherapy. Median age was 77 years and median follow-up was 30.3 months (range 8.6-45.2). Median overall survival was 10.3 months for doublet chemotherapy and 6.2 months for monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78; p<0.0001); 1-year survival was 44.5% (95% CI 37.9-50.9) and 25.4% (19.9-31.3), respectively. Toxic effects were more frequent in the doublet chemotherapy group than in the monotherapy group (most frequent, decreased neutrophil count (108 [48.4%] vs 28 [12.4%]; asthenia 23 [10.3%] vs 13 [5.8%]). INTERPRETATION: Despite increased toxic effects, platinum-based doublet chemotherapy was associated with survival benefits compared with vinorelbine or gemcitabine monotherapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. We feel that the current treatment paradigm for these patients should be reconsidered. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique, Institut National du Cancer.

Concurrent or sequential adjuvant letrozole and radiotherapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer (CO-HO-RT): a phase 2 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Letrozole radiosensitises breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: This phase 2 randomised trial was undertaken in two centres in France and one in Switzerland between Jan 12, 2005, and Feb 21, 2007. 150 postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75). Randomisation was open label with a minimisation technique, stratified by investigational centres, chemotherapy (yes vs no), radiation boost (yes vs no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (< or = 16% vs >16%). Whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44-50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2.5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks post-radiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. FINDINGS: All patients were analysed apart from one in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment. During radiotherapy and within the first 12 weeks after radiotherapy, 31 patients in the concurrent group and 31 in the sequential group had any grade 2 or worse skin-related toxicity. The most common skin-related adverse event was dermatitis: four patients in the concurrent group and six in the sequential group had grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3-40), two patients in each group had grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis). INTERPRETATION: Letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate cardiac side-effects and cancer-specific outcomes. FUNDING: Novartis Oncology France.

Concurrent or Sequential Adjuvant Letrozole and Radiotherapy after Conservative Surgery for Early-stage Breast Cancer: Long-term Results of the Cohort Phase 2 Randomized Trial

Purpose/Objective(s): Letrozole radiosensitizes breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting.Materials/Methods: The present study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. This Phase 2 randomized trial was undertaken in two centers in France and one in Switzerland between January 12, 2005, and February 21, 2007. One hundred fifty postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n = 75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n = 75). Randomization was open label with a minimization technique, stratified by investigational centers, chemotherapy (yes vs. no), radiation boost (yes vs. no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (#16% vs. .16%). The whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44 - 50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2 - 5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks postradiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced Grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin and lung (functional pulmonary test and lung CT-scan). Analyses were by intention-to-treat. The long-term follow-up after 2 years was only performed in Montpellier (n = 121) and evaluated skin toxicity (clinical examination every 6 months), lung fibrosis (one CT-scan yearly), cosmetic outcome.Results: All patients were analyzed apart from 1 in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment.Within the first 2 years (n = 149), no lung toxicity was identified by CT scan and no modification from baseline was noted by the lung diffusion capacity test. Two patients in each group had Grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis [RISF]). After 2 years (n = 121), and with a median follow-up of 50 months (38-62), 2 patients (1 in each arm) presented a Grade 3 RISF. No lung toxicity was identified by CT scan. Cosmetic results (photographies) and quality of life was good to excellent. All patients who had Grade 3 subcutaneous fibrosis had an RILA value of 16% or less, irrespective of the sequence with letrozole.Conclusions:With long-term follow-up, letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy.

Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal

Background: Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results. Methods and Findings: The objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0–8.4%), 1.4% (0–2.8%), 41% (35–47%), 8.4% (4.1–13%), and 66% (60–72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%). Conclusions: Trial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available.

Assessment of subjective and hemodynamic tolerance of different high- and low-flux dialysis membranes in patients undergoing chronic intermittent hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial.

Clinical experience and experimental data suggest that intradialytic hemodynamic profiles could be influenced by the characteristics of the dialysis membranes. Even within the worldwide used polysulfone family, intolerance to specific membranes was occasionally evoked. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamically some of the commonly used polysulfone dialyzers in Switzerland. We performed an open-label, randomized, cross-over trial, including 25 hemodialysis patients. Four polysulfone dialyzers, A (Revaclear high-flux, Gambro, Stockholm, Sweden), B (Helixone high-flux, Fresenius), C (Xevonta high-flux, BBraun, Melsungen, Germany), and D (Helixone low-flux, Fresenius, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany), were compared. The hemodynamic profile was assessed and patients were asked to provide tolerance feedback. The mean score (±SD) subjectively assigned to dialysis quality on a 1-10 scale was A 8.4 ± 1.3, B 8.6 ± 1.3, C 8.5 ± 1.6, D 8.5 ± 1.5. Kt/V was A 1.58 ± 0.30, B 1.67 ± 0.33, C 1.62 ± 0.32, D 1.45 ± 0.31. The low- compared with the high-flux membranes, correlated to higher systolic (128.1 ± 13.1 vs. 125.6 ± 12.1 mmHg, P < 0.01) and diastolic (76.8 ± 8.7 vs. 75.3 ± 9.0 mmHg; P < 0.05) pressures, higher peripheral resistance (1.44 ± 0.19 vs. 1.40 ± 0.18 s × mmHg/mL; P < 0.05) and lower cardiac output (3.76 ± 0.62 vs. 3.82 ± 0.59 L/min; P < 0.05). Hypotension events (decrease in systolic blood pressure by >20 mmHg) were 70 with A, 87 with B, 73 with C, and 75 with D (P < 0.01 B vs. A, 0.05 B vs. C and 0.07 B vs. D). The low-flux membrane correlated to higher blood pressure levels compared with the high-flux ones. The Helixone high-flux membrane ensured the best efficiency. Unfortunately, the very same dialyzer correlated to a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes.

Psychopharmacotherapy of panic disorder: 8-week randomized trial with clonazepam and paroxetine

The objective of the present randomized, open-label, naturalistic 8-week study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with clonazepam (N = 63) and paroxetine (N = 57) in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Efficacy assessment included number of panic attacks and clinician ratings of the global severity of panic disorders with the clinical global impression (CGI) improvement (CGI-I) and CGI severity (CGI-S) scales. Most patients were females (69.8 and 68.4% in the clonazepam and paroxetine groups, respectively) and age (mean ± SD) was 35.9 ± 9.6 years for the clonazepam group and 33.7 ± 8.8 years for the paroxetine group. Treatment with clonazepam versus paroxetine resulted in fewer weekly panic attacks at week 4 (0.1 vs 0.5, respectively; P < 0.01), and greater clinical improvements at week 8 (CGI-I: 1.6 vs 2.9; P = 0.04). Anxiety severity was significantly reduced with clonazepam versus paroxetine at weeks 1 and 2, with no difference in panic disorder severity. Patients treated with clonazepam had fewer adverse events than patients treated with paroxetine (73 vs 95%; P = 0.001). The most common adverse events were drowsiness/fatigue (57%), memory/concentration difficulties (24%), and sexual dysfunction (11%) in the clonazepam group and drowsiness/fatigue (81%), sexual dysfunction (70%), and nausea/vomiting (61%) in the paroxetine group. This naturalistic study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam and paroxetine in the acute treatment of patients with panic disorder.