Combination Therapy Arm Research Articles

Less Is More

Definitive combination antibiotic therapy with a β-lactam and an aminoglycoside for the treatment of gram-negative bacteremia is commonly prescribed in pediatric patients; however, its efficacy and toxicity relative to β-lactam monotherapy are unknown. To determine whether definitive combination antibiotic therapy affects mortality and nephrotoxicity in pediatric patients with gram-negative bacteremia. Retrospective cohort study including pediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) with gram-negative bacteremia hospitalized at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center between 2002 and 2011. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and nephrotoxicity classified according to the pediatric RIFLE (risk for renal dysfunction, injury to the kidney, failure of kidney function, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal disease) criteria. To account for nonrandom assignment of combination therapy, propensity score weighting was combined with multivariable logistic regression to estimate the effect of combination therapy on mortality and nephrotoxicity. Of the 879 eligible pediatric patients with bacteremia, 537 (61.1%) received combination therapy. After propensity score adjustment, baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups were well balanced. There was no association between combination therapy and 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.02; P = .27). There were 170 patients (19.3%) with evidence of acute kidney injury, including 135 (25.1%) and 35 (10.2%) in the combination therapy and monotherapy arms, respectively. Patients receiving combination therapy had approximately twice the odds of nephrotoxicity compared with those receiving monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.09-2.21). The use of β-lactam monotherapy for gram-negative bacteremia in pediatric patients reduces subsequent nephrotoxicity without compromising survival.

Is there really no benefit to combination therapy with colistin?

Evaluation of: Colistin and Rifampicin compared with colistin alone for the treatment of serious infections due to extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 57(3), 349–358 (2013).Despite many theoretical and in vitro advantages, clinical data comparing combination therapy with colistin + rifampicin to colistin alone for infection due to extremely-drug resistant (XDR) Acinetobacter baumanni are scarce and limited by small numbers and/or low quality evidence. This article represents the first large, randomized, controlled, prospective study comparing colistin monotherapy and combination therapy. The reviewed article found no difference in all cause or infection related mortality, though there was an improved rate of microbiological clearance in the combination therapy arm. This study adds important new data to the literature and sets the stage for future studies that can be designed to overcome the limitations of this study, which are discussed in detail below. Based on this study, we cannot say definitively that combination therapy is not warranted for treatment of invasive infection due to A. baumannii, but the results do suggest that rifampicin is not an ideal agent to be combined with colistin.

Combined therapy in untreated patients improves outcome in Nasal NK/T lymphoma: results of a clinical trial

Nasal NK/T-cell lymphoma is a rare presentation of T-cell lymphoma in USA and in Europe, but is the most common presentation in Latin America. The lymphoma is associated with a worse prognosis even in the early stage. Until now, a better treatment has not been determined. We performed a prospective, open-label, controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and toxicity of the most common treatment options. We treated 427 patients, of whom 109 patients received radiotherapy (RT), 116 patients received chemotherapy (C), and 202 patients received combined therapy (CT), which were balanced according to stage and prognostic factors. Complete response was achieved in 91% (95% confidence interval CI 88-102%) in CT arm 69% (95% CI 61-75%) in RT arm; and 59% (95% CI 48-64%) in C arm (p<0.01). A progression-free disease was 91% (95% CI 83-96%); 78% (95% CI 69-86%); and 40% (95% CI 32-46%), respectively (p<0.01). Actuarial curves of overall survival at 5 years were as follows: 86% (95% CI 81-90%), for CT; 64% (95% CI 59-70%) for RT; and 45% (95% CI 39-51%) for C (p<0.001). Toxicity was mild and well tolerated. To our knowledge, this is the first controlled clinical trial, with a large number of patients and longer follow-up. Thus, we conclude that CT is the best therapeutic option in this setting of patients.

Phase II randomised proof-of-concept study of the urokinase inhibitor upamostat (WX-671) in combination with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with non-resectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Background:To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) inhibitor upamostat in combination with gemcitabine in locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC).Methods:Within a prospective multicenter study, LAPC patients were randomly assigned to receive 1000 mg m−2 of gemcitabine IV weekly either alone (arm A) or in combination with 200 mg (arm B) or 400 mg (arm C) oral upamostat daily. Efficacy endpoints of this proof-of-concept study included response rate, time to first metastasis, progression-free and overall survival (OS).Results:Of the 95 enroled patients, 85 were evaluable for response and 93 for safety. Median OS was 12.5 months (95% CI 8.2–18.2) in arm C, 9.7 months (95% CI 8.4–17.1) in arm B and 9.9 months (95% CI 7.4–12.1) in arm A; corresponding 1-year survival rates were 50.6%, 40.7% and 33.9%, respectively. More patients achieved a partial remission (confirmed responses by RECIST) with upamostat combination therapy (arm C: 12.9% arm B: 7.1% arm A: 3.8%). Overall, only 12 patients progressed by developing detectable distant metastasis (arm A: 4, arm B: 6, arm C: 2). The most common adverse events considered to be related to upamostat were asthenia, fever and nausea.Conclusion:In this proof-of-concept study targeting the uPA system in LAPC, the addition of upamostat to gemcitabine was tolerated well; similar survival results were observed for the three treatment arms.

A randomized phase II study of lapatinib + pazopanib versus lapatinib in patients with HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer

This multi-center Phase II study evaluated lapatinib, pazopanib, and the combination in patients with relapsed HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer. In Cohort 1, 76 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive lapatinib 1,500 mg + placebo or lapatinib 1,500 mg + pazopanib 800 mg (double-blind) once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Due to high-grade diarrhea observed with this dose combination in another study (VEG20007), Cohort 1 was closed. The protocol was amended such that an additional 88 patients (Cohort 2) were randomized in a 5:5:2 ratio to receive daily monotherapy lapatinib 1,500 mg, lapatinib 1,000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg, or monotherapy pazopanib 800 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. In Cohort 1, ORR for the lapatinib (n = 38) and combination (n = 38) arms was 29 and 45 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.1 and 14.3 weeks, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the combination arm (71 %) than in the lapatinib arm (24 %). Dose reductions and interruptions due to AEs were also more frequent in the combination arm (45 and 53 %, respectively) than in the lapatinib monotherapy arm (0 and 11 %, respectively). In Cohort 2, ORR for patients treated with lapatinib (n = 36), lapatinib + pazopanib (n = 38), and pazopanib (n = 13) was 47, 58, and 31 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.0, 16.0, and 11.4 weeks, respectively. In the lapatinib, combination, and pazopanib therapy arms, grade ≥3 AEs were reported for 17, 50, and 46 % of patients, respectively, and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was 0, 24, and 23 %, respectively. The lapatinib–pazopanib combination was associated with a numerically higher ORR but no increase in PFS compared to lapatinib alone. The combination also had increased toxicity resulting in more dose reductions, modifications, and treatment delays. Activity with single-agent lapatinib was confirmed in this population.

Effect of Oseltamivir, Zanamivir or Oseltamivir– Zanamivir Combination Treatments on Transmission of Influenza in Households

The effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors to reduce transmission when used as treatment in influenza-infected patients remains debated. In a prespecified analysis of a blinded randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination therapy versus oseltamivir and zanamivir monotherapy conducted during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemic, we compared the rate of secondary illness in household contacts of influenza-positive index patients between arms. Secondary illness was defined as occurrence in contacts of fever plus cough within 7 days from randomization of index patients. Analyses were conducted according to the delay between patients' onset of symptoms and intervention. A total of 543 household contacts of 267 index patients were included, of which 466 had follow-up assessment. A secondary illness was reported in 58 (12.5%) contacts with no significant difference between arms overall (P=0.07). When the analysis was limited to the 232 contacts of 136 index patients with first treatment intake within 24 h of onset of symptoms, a lower rate of secondary illness was reported in the combination therapy arm (2 of 56 [4%]) than in the oseltamivir arm (14 of 81 [17%]; P=0.014) and the zanamivir arm (14 of 95 [15%]; P=0.031). Multivariate analysis accounting for intra-household correlation confirmed these findings. Our analysis suggests a greater effectiveness of the combination therapy to reduce transmissibility when given to the index patient within 24 h of onset of symptoms. As the finding was obtained from a subgroup analysis, it should be interpreted with caution.

Meta-Analysis of Safety of the Coadministration of Statin With Fenofibrate in Patients With Combined Hyperlipidemia

Addition of fenofibrate to statin therapy might represent a viable treatment option for patients whose high risk for coronary heart disease is not controlled by a statin alone. However, safety of coadministration of statin with fenofibrate has been a great concern. The present study tested the safety of coadministration of statin with fenofibrate. We systematically searched the literature to identify randomized controlled trials examining safety of coadministration of statin with fenofibrate. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate safety of coadministration of statin with fenofibrate using fixed-effects models. There were 1,628 subjects in the identified 6 studies. Discontinuation attributed to any adverse events (4.5% vs 3.1%, p = 0.20), any adverse events (42% vs 41%, p = 0.82), adverse events related to study drug (10.9% vs 11.0%, p = 0.95), and serious adverse events (2.0% vs 1.5%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different in the 2 arms. Incidence of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase ≥3 times upper limit of normal in the combination therapy arm was significantly higher than in the statin monotherapy arm (3.1% vs 0.2%, p = 0.0009). In the 6 trials with 1,628 subjects no case of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis was reported. In conclusion, statin-fenofibrate combination therapy was tolerated as well as statin monotherapy. Physicians should consider statin-fenofibrate combination therapy to treat patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have shown clear benefits over conventional treatments for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, a high proportion of patients lose response over time. Given the scarce alternative of treatments when treatment failure occurs, it is highly desirable to optimize both initial response and long-term continuation of TNF antagonists. One of the most well-characterized factors associated with loss of response to these agents is the development of immunogenicity, whereby the production of neutralizing antidrug antibodies accelerates drug clearance, leading to subtherapeutic drug concentrations and, ultimately, to treatment failure. However, other patient-related factors, such as sex and/or body size, and disease severity, including TNF burden and serum albumin concentration among others, also may influence the pharmacokinetics of these agents. Nevertheless, the evidence generated to date about these complex interactions is scarce, and further prospective studies evaluating their influence on the pharmacokinetics of TNF antagonists are needed. Drug adjustment empirically based on clinical symptoms often is inaccurate and may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Recent evidence shows that maintenance of an optimal therapeutic drug concentration is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, incorporation of therapeutic drug monitoring into clinical practice may allow clinicians to optimize treatment by maintaining effective drug concentrations over time.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin versus linagliptin or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial, 791 patients were randomized to one of six treatment arms. Two free combination therapy arms received linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) + either low (500 mg) or high (1000 mg) dose metformin bid. Four monotherapy arms received linagliptin 5 mg once daily, metformin 500 mg or 1000 mg bid or placebo. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥11.0% were not eligible for randomization and received open-label linagliptin + high-dose metformin. The placebo-corrected mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline (8.7%) to week 24 was -1.7% (-2.0, -1.4) for linagliptin + high-dose metformin, -1.3% (-1.6, -1.1) for linagliptin + low-dose metformin, -1.2% (-1.5, -0.9) for high-dose metformin, -0.8% (-1.0, -0.5) for low-dose metformin and -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3) for linagliptin (all p < 0.0001). In the open-label arm, the mean change in HbA1c from baseline (11.8%) was -3.7%. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar low rate with linagliptin + metformin (1.7%) as with metformin alone (2.4%). Adverse event rates were comparable across treatment arms. No clinically significant changes in body weight were noted. Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin was superior to metformin monotherapy in improving glycaemic control, with a similar safety and tolerability profile, no weight gain and a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

External-beam radiation therapy should be given with androgen deprivation treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: new confirmatory evidence

External-beam radiation therapy should be given with androgen deprivation treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: new confirmatory evidence

Phase II randomized trial of bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and thalidomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a California Cancer Consortium trial

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is upregulated in multiple myeloma (MM), and circulating VEGF levels may correlate with response to therapy (Hideshima, et al 2005, Pittini, et al 2002). Thalidomide has been part of the standard treatment for MM and is thought to inhibit VEGF-associated angiogenesis (Du, et al 2004). Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF-A, inhibits VEGF (Jenab-Wolcott and Giantonio 2009). Accordingly, we set out to test the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone and in combination with thalidomide in MM patients.

Parasitological efficacy of antimalarials in the treatment and prevention of falciparum malaria in pregnancy 1998 to 2009: a systematic review

Pregnant women are at increased risk from malaria. Resistance to all classes of antimalarials has affected the treatment and prevention of malaria in pregnancy. To review the therapeutic efficacy of antimalarials used for treatment and intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) in pregnancy. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between January 1998 and December 2009 for publications using the medical subject headings: efficacy, antimalarials, malaria, pregnancy, pharmacokinetics, treatment, IPT and placenta positive. In May 2010 we searched the register of clinical trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and of WHO (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) using 'malaria', and 'pregnancy' and 'treatment'. We identified 233 abstracts, reviewed 83 full text articles and included 60 studies. Two authors entered extracted data to an excel spreadsheet. Parasitological failure rates, placenta positivity rates (assessed by microscopy) or both were reported in 44% (21/48), 46% (22/48) and 10% (5/48) of articles, respectively. Most pharmacokinetic studies (9/12) suggested dose optimisation. In 23 treatment studies 17 different antimalarial drugs were delivered in 53 study arms; 43.4% (23/53) reported a failure rate of < 5%; 83.3% of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) arms and 9% of artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) arms had failure rates ≥ 10%. Placenta-positive rates (mostly reported in the context of IPT in pregnancy) were > 10% in 68% (23/34) of SP trial arms and > 15% in all seven chloroquine arms. The ACT provided lower parasitological failure and gametocyte carriage rates. Drugs used in pregnancy should aim for 95% efficacy but many currently deployed regimens are associated with much lower cure rates.

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer with and without Bevacizumab: A Phase III Study

Objective: The objective of this phase III trial was to compare chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Methods: From September 2004 till September 2008, 222 treatment-naive patients were enrolled and divided into 2 arms: 114 arm A patients were treated with leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil plus irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab, and 108 arm B patients were treated as above without bevacizumab. All patients were stage IV with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma. Results: The median overall survival of arm A patients was 22.0 months (95% CI: 18.1–25.9) and 25.0 months (CI: 18.1–31.9) for arm B patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 arms (p = 0.1391). No statistically significant difference between the 2 arms regarding the response ratewas observed: partial response, 42 patients (36.8%) and 38 patients (35.2%) for arms A and B, respectively. Hematologic toxicity did not differ in the comparison of the 2 arms. Nonhematologic toxicity in arm A involved hypertension in 23 (20.2%) of the patients and proteinuria in 7 (6.1%); 3 patients experienced hemorrhage and 1 patient intestinal perforation. None of these side effects was observed in arm B patients. Conclusion: No statistically significant difference in median overall survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with bevacizumab plus a combination therapy (arm A) and those treated with the combination only, without bevacizumab (arm B), was observed.

Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine plus S-1 Combination Therapy vs. S-1 in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG0805)

A randomized Phase II selection design trial comparing gemcitabine plus S-1 combination therapy with S-1 monotherapy for chemo-naïve unresectable or recurrent biliary tract cancer patients was started in Japan. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two regimens and to determine which is more promising as a test arm regimen to be compared with the current standard regimen, gemcitabine plus cisplatin, in a subsequent Phase III trial. Patients with unresectable or recurrent biliary tract cancer are randomized to either gemcitabine plus S-1 combination therapy arm or S-1 monotherapy arm. A total of 100 patients will be accrued for this study from 18 institutions over 1 year. The primary endpoint is the proportion of 1-year overall survival, and the secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, response rate and adverse events.

Invasive Aspergillosis in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

This chapter discusses the current status and evolving trends in the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnostic laboratory assays, and the approach to antifungal prophylaxis and treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Solid Organ Transplant (SOT) recipients. Most invasive fungal infections in these high-risk patients occur within the first month posttransplant; the median time to onset of invasive aspergillosis after renal replacement therapy and retransplantation was 13 and 28 days, respectively, in one study. Other factors associated with invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients include transplantation for fulminate hepatic failure, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, and prolonged intensive care unit stay. A retrospective survey documented invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in 7.5% (19/251) of lung transplant recipients, of whom 47% (9/19) had disseminated aspergillosis. In a survey of antifungal prophylactic strategies in lung transplant units in the United States, aerosolized amphotericin B was the most frequently employed antifungal prophylactic agent. In order of preference, the prophylactic agents used in lung transplant centers in this study were inhaled amphotericin B (61%), itraconazole (46%), parenteral amphotericin formulations (25%), and fluconazole (21%); many centers used more than one agent. Preemptive therapy, where antifungal prophylaxis is directed towards lung transplant recipients colonized with Aspergillus spp. immediately before or within 6 to 9 months after transplantation, is another approach to the prevention of invasive aspergillosis in lung transplant recipients.

The effect of endostatin and gemcitabine combined with HIFU on the animal xenograft model of human pancreatic cancer

Objective To investigate the influence of the recombinant human endostatin and gemcitabine combined with HIFU on the mouse xenograft model of pancreatic cancer. Methods Use human pancreatic cancer cell line PANC-1 to set up the mouse xenograft model, then randomized into four arms. Each arm was treated with gemcitabine, endostatin, gemcitabine combined with endostatin and normal saline respectively. Observe the volume of the tumor, the serum VEGF level and MVD in the tumor tissue among the different arms. All mice were treated with HIFU, then pathological examination was done. Results The tumor volume, serum VEGF level and MVD in the combined-therapy arm are all lower than the monotherapy arms and the control arm. The coagulation necrosis occurred in tumors after HIFU treatment. Conclusion Endostatin and gemcitabine has better effect than gemcitabine or endostatin monotherapy on the animal xenograft model of human pancreatic cancer. HIFU combined with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy may enhance the effect for pancreatic cancer.

Commentary on Bevacizumab plus interferonα compared with interferonα monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: CALGB 90206: Rini BI, Halabi S, Rosenberg JE, Stadler WM, Vaena DA, Ou SS, Archer L, Atkins JN, Picus J, Czaykowski P, Dutcher J, Small EJ, Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH

Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferonα (IFN) is a historic standard first-line treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN vs. IFN monotherapy was conducted. Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear-cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million U subcutaneously 3 times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled. The prespecified stopping rule for OS has not yet been reached. The median PFS was 8.5 months in patients receiving bevacizumab plus IFN (95% CI, 7.5–9.7 months) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.1–5.6 months) in patients receiving IFN monotherapy (log-rank P < 0.0001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61–0.83; P < 0.0001). Bevacizumab plus IFN had a higher ORR as compared with IFN (25.5% [95% CI, 20.9%–30.6%] vs. 13.1% [95% CI, 9.5%–17.3%]; P < 0.0001). Overall toxicity was greater for bevacizumab plus IFN, including significantly more grade 3 hypertension (9% vs. 0%), anorexia (17% vs. 8%), fatigue (35% vs. 28%), and proteinuria (13% vs. 0%). Bevacizumab plus IFN produces a superior PFS and ORR in untreated patients with metastatic RCC compared with IFN monotherapy. Toxicity is greater in the combination therapy arm.

A Phase II Randomized Trial of Amphotericin B Alone or Combined with Fluconazole in the Treatment of HIV‐Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis

Cryptococcosis is a life-threatening infection among patients with human immunodeficientcy virus (HIV) infection. Therapeutic options for the treatment of central nervous system cryptococcosis are limited, especially in resource-limited settings. We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase II trial in Thailand and the United States that compared the safety and efficacy of intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB) 0.7 mg/kg (the standard therapy) with that of AmB 0.7 mg/kg plus fluconazole 400 mg (the low-dosage combination) or AmB 0.7 mg/kg plus fluconazole 800 mg (the high-dosage combination) administered daily for 14 days, followed by fluconazole alone at the randomized dosage (400 or 800 mg per day) for 56 days. The primary safety end point was the number of severe or life-threatening treatment-related toxicities; the primary efficacy end point was a composite of survival, neurologic stability, and negative cerebrospinal fluid culture results after 14 days of therapy. A total of 143 patients were enrolled. There were no differences in treatment-related toxicities among the 3 arms. Toxicity was predictable and was most often related to AmB, and it included electrolyte abnormalities, anemia, nephrotoxicity, and infusion-related events. At day 14, 41%, 27%, and 54% of patients in the standard therapy, low-dosage combination, and high-dosage combination therapy arms, respectively, demonstrated successful outcomes. A trend towards better outcomes in the combination therapy arms was seen at days 42 and 70. AmB plus fluconazole administered at a dosage of 800 mg for 14 days, followed by fluconazole administered at a dosage of 800 mg daily for 56 days, is well-tolerated and efficacious among HIV-positive patients with central nervous system cryptococcosis. These results have significant treatment implications and should be validated in a randomized phase III trial.

Weekly paclitaxel (wP) as single agent or in combination with weekly topotecan (wT) or carboplatin (C) in patients with resistant ovarian cancer (ROC): The phase II CARTAXHY randomized trial from GINECO

5557 Background: For ROC patients (pts) with early progression during or after (&lt; 6 months) platinum and 3 weekly P, use of single non-platinum agent including wP is standard (Kristensen G, et al. J Clin Oncol 26: 2008 abstr 5508). Few randomized trials have explored combination therapy in this setting. Methods: Pts with ROC after a first or second line including a platinum and a taxane were randomized to receive wP (80 mg/m2/week) alone or in combination with wT (3mg/m2/week) or C (AUC 5 every 4 weeks). The primary end-point was the comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) between single non-platinum agent and combination therapy (wP+wT or wP+C). Secondary objectives included safety, QoL, response rate (RR) and overall survival. Results: From April 2004 to August 2008, 165 pts were accrued (wP 57, wP+wT 57, wP+C 51). Median number of cycles and P dose-intensity (mg/m2/week) was 4.6 and 70, 4.2 and 63 in monotherapy and combination therapy arms respectively. Non-hematological toxicity was not different between the arms, except an excess of hypersensitivity reactions in the wP+C arm. Grade 3–4 neutropenia (48 vs 13% of pts), and anemia (24 vs 6%) were more frequent in combination therapy than in single agent arm and similar with wT or C combination. Febrile neutropenia was experienced by 5 pts treated with combination therapy. Discontinuation from drug treatment was more frequent with combination therapy (24% of pts) than with monotherapy (4%), mainly due to hematotoxicity. RR was 34, 38 and 39% for wP, wP+wT and wP+C respectively. Median PFS of pts treated with single agent (112 days) was not significantly different from those treated with combination therapy (149 days) (p = 0,62) and was similar in wP+wT (152 days) or wP+C (146 days) arms. Treatment with single non-platinum agent or combination therapy was not found an independent parameter when added to a Cox model including prognostic variables. Conclusions: Combination therapy (CT) in platinum resistant ovarian cancer was found more toxic than weekly paclitaxel and the PFS advantage from CT was not statistically significant. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa Compared With Interferon Alfa Monotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: CALGB 90206

Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN) is a historic standard first-line treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN versus IFN monotherapy was conducted. Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear-cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million U subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled. The prespecified stopping rule for OS has not yet been reached. The median PFS was 8.5 months in patients receiving bevacizumab plus IFN (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.7 months) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 5.6 months) in patients receiving IFN monotherapy (log-rank P < .0001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.83; P < .0001). Bevacizumab plus IFN had a higher ORR as compared with IFN (25.5% [95% CI, 20.9% to 30.6%] v 13.1% [95% CI, 9.5% to 17.3%]; P < .0001). Overall toxicity was greater for bevacizumab plus IFN, including significantly more grade 3 hypertension (9% v 0%), anorexia (17% v 8%), fatigue (35% v 28%), and proteinuria (13% v 0%). Bevacizumab plus IFN produces a superior PFS and ORR in untreated patients with metastatic RCC as compared with IFN monotherapy. Toxicity is greater in the combination therapy arm.