Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX) : an open-label randomised phase III trial

Background: Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (≥18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m 2 over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. Findings: Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11·3 months vs 10·1 months; hazard ratio for death 0·871 [95% CI 0·762-0·996]; p=0·044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3). Interpretation: Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding: Merck KGaA. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A multi-centre open-label randomised non-inferiority trial comparing watchful waiting to antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media without perforation in low-risk urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (the WATCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Treatment guidelines recommend watchful waiting for children older than 2 years with acute otitis media (AOM) without perforation, unless they are at high risk of complications. The high prevalence of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities leads these children to be classified as high risk. Urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are at lower risk of complications, but evidence to support the subsequent recommendation for watchful waiting in this population is lacking. Methods/Design This non-inferiority multi-centre randomised controlled trial will determine whether watchful waiting is non-inferior to immediate antibiotics for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with AOM without perforation. Children aged 2 − 16 years with AOM who are considered at low risk for complications will be recruited from six participating urban primary health care services across Australia. We will obtain informed consent from each participant or their guardian. The primary outcome is clinical resolution on day 7 (no pain, no fever of at least 38 °C, no bulging eardrum and no complications of AOM such as perforation or mastoiditis) as assessed by general practitioners or nurse practitioners. Participants and outcome assessors will not be blinded to treatment. With a sample size of 198 children in each arm, we have 80 % power to detect a non-inferiority margin of up to 10 % at a significance level of 5 %, assuming clinical improvement of at least 80 % in both groups. Allowing for a 20 % dropout rate, we aim to recruit 495 children. We will analyse both by intention-to-treat and per protocol. We will assess the cost- effectiveness of watchful waiting compared to immediate antibiotic prescription. We will also report on the implementation of the trial from the perspectives of parents/carers, health professionals and researchers. Discussion The trial will provide evidence for the safety and effectiveness of watchful waiting for the management of AOM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in urban settings who are considered to be at low risk of complications.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

A 6-month open-label study of the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with Alzheimer's disease

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in everyday clinical practice. Patient selection was made on 36 sequential patients attending Belfast City Hospital Memory Clinic between December 2000 and June 2001. Patients were treated with galantamine for 6 months, starting from 4 mg twice daily increasing to 8 mg twice daily and then to 12 mg twice daily at 4-weekly intervals. Patients (25 females, 11 males), mean age 78 years (59-90), were diagnosed with probable AD and had a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 10-26. Efficacy was assessed using the MMSE, neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), neuropsychiatric inventory caregiver distress (NPI-D) scale and the Bristol activities of daily living (B-ADL) scale at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Mean improvements were noted on all four measures of efficacy at 3 and 6 months; improvements were significant on the MMSE, NPI and NPI-D at 3 months and on the NPI-D at 6 months. Galantamine was overall well tolerated. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, particularly nausea. Four patients stopped treatment due to adverse events, and seven were stabilised on 8 mg twice daily as they were unable to tolerate the target dose. This naturalistic study confirms clinical trial data, which shows galantamine improves cognition and behavioural symptoms and is overall well tolerated. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Vandetanib with FOLFIRI in patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma: results from an open-label, multicentre phase I study.

The safety and tolerability of vandetanib (ZACTIMA; ZD6474) plus FOLFIRI was investigated in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Patients eligible for first- or second-line chemotherapy received once-daily oral doses of vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) plus 14-day treatment cycles of FOLFIRI. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients received vandetanib 100 mg (n = 11) or 300 mg (n = 10) + FOLFIRI. Combination therapy was well tolerated at both vandetanib dose levels. There were no DLTs in the vandetanib 100 mg cohort and one DLT of hypertension (CTCAE grade 3) in the 300 mg cohort. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (n = 20), nausea (n = 12) and fatigue (n = 10). Two patients (one in each cohort) discontinued vandetanib due to adverse events (rash, 100 mg cohort; hypertension, 300 mg cohort). There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between vandetanib and FOLFIRI. Preliminary efficacy results included two confirmed partial responses in the 100 mg cohort and 9 patients with stable disease > or =8 weeks (100 mg, n = 7; 300 mg, n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) in combination with a standard FOLFIRI regimen was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced CRC.

The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND: Anemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35-54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan.

RESULTS: Thirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration.

CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009).

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.

Intensifying insulin regimen after basal insulin optimization in adults with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, open-label trial comparing insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine with biphasic insulin aspart (LanScape)

AIM: To test the hypothesis that a 'basal plus' regimenadding once-daily main-meal fast-acting insulin to basal insulin once dailywould be non-inferior to biphasic insulin twice daily as assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration (predefined as ≤0.4%), but would provide superior treatment satisfaction. METHODS: This open-label trial enrolled adults to an 8- or 12-week run-in period, during which oral therapies except metformin were stopped and insulin glargine dose was titrated. Those with fasting glucose <7 mmol/l but HbA1c >7% (53 mmol/mol) were randomized to insulin glargine/glulisine once daily (n = 170) or insulin aspart/aspart protamine 30/70 twice daily (n = 165) for 24 weeks, with dose titration to glucose targets using standardized algorithms. RESULTS: For HbA1c, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin (least squares mean difference, 0.21%, upper 97.5% confidence limit 0.38%) meeting the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire total scores) significantly favoured basal plus. No difference was observed between the basal plus and the biphasic insulin groups in responders (HbA1c <7%, 20.6 vs 27.9%; p = 0.12), weight gain (2.06 vs 2.50 kg; p = 0.2), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life average weighted impact (AWI) score) and generic health status (five-dimension European Quality of Life questionnaire). Overall hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups (15.3 vs 18.2 events/patient-year; p = 0.22); nocturnal hypoglycaemia was higher with the basal plus regimen (5.7 vs 3.6 events/patient-year; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In long-standing type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycaemia despite oral therapies and basal insulin, the basal plus regimen was non-inferior to biphasic insulin for biomedical outcomes, with a similar overall hypoglycaemia rate but more nocturnal events.