Modified Intent-to-treat Population Research Articles

Ceftazidime-Avibactam versus Meropenem for the Treatment of Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections.

This study reports an integrated analysis of three randomized controlled trials to compare the clinical efficacies and safety of the ceftazidime–avibactam (CAZ–AVI) combination and meropenem in the treatment of adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). Overall, a total of 1677 patients (CAZ–AVI: 835 patients; meropenem: 842 patients) were included in this analysis. CAZ–AVI had a clinical cure rate at test of cure in the clinically evaluable (CE) population similar to that of meropenem (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58–1.32; I2 = 0%). Similar trends were also observed in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59–1.09; I2 = 0%) and microbiological evaluable (ME) population (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.32–1.68; I2 = 0%). In terms of clinical cure rate at the end of treatment, the efficacy of CAZ–AVI was comparable to that of meropenem in the CE population (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47–1.25; I2 = 0%), MITT population (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47–1.06; I2 = 5%), and ME population (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.39–4.08; I2 = 0%). CAZ–AVI had a similar risk of (i) treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.36; I2 = 38%), (ii) any serious adverse events (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67–1.40; I2 = 0%), (iii) discontinuation of study drug due to TEAE (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.00–4.57), and iv) all-cause mortality (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.78–3.53; I2 = 0%) when compared with meropenem. In conclusion, CAZ–AVI had comparable efficacy and safety profile to those of meropenem in the treatment of cIAI.

Oral Lefamulin vs Moxifloxacin for Early Clinical Response Among Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

New antibacterials are needed to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) because of growing antibacterial resistance and safety concerns with standard care. To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of a 5-day oral lefamulin regimen in patients with CABP. A phase 3, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 99 sites in 19 countries that included adults aged 18 years or older with a Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class of II, III, or IV; radiographically documented pneumonia; acute illness; 3 or more CABP symptoms; and 2 or more vital sign abnormalities. The first patient visit was on August 30, 2016, and patients were followed up for 30 days; the final follow-up visit was on January 2, 2018. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 hours for 5 days; n = 370) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours for 7 days; n = 368). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) primary end point was early clinical response at 96 hours (within a 24-hour window) after the first dose of either study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients). Responders were defined as alive, showing improvement in 2 or more of the 4 CABP symptoms, having no worsening of any CABP symptoms, and not receiving any nonstudy antibacterial drug for current CABP episode. The European Medicines Agency coprimary end points (FDA secondary end points) were investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose) in the modified ITT population and in the clinically evaluable population. The noninferiority margin was 10% for early clinical response and investigator assessment of clinical response. Among 738 randomized patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 351 women [47.6%]; 360 had a PORT risk class of III or IV [48.8%]), 707 (95.8%) completed the trial. Early clinical response rates were 90.8% with lefamulin and 90.8% with moxifloxacin (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -4.4% to ∞]). Rates of investigator assessment of clinical response success were 87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin in the modified ITT population (difference, -1.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.3% to ∞]) and 89.7% and 93.6%, respectively, in the clinically evaluable population (difference, -3.9% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -8.2% to ∞]) at test of cure. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (diarrhea: 45/368 [12.2%] in lefamulin group and 4/368 [1.1%] in moxifloxacin group; nausea: 19/368 [5.2%] in lefamulin group and 7/368 [1.9%] in moxifloxacin group). Among patients with CABP, 5-day oral lefamulin was noninferior to 7-day oral moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response at 96 hours after first dose. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02813694; European Clinical Trials Identifier: 2015-004782-92.

Intention-to-treat assessment of glecaprevir + pibrentasvir combination therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C in the real world.

We assessed the problems and efficacy of glecaprevir + pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) therapy for patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the real world. A total of 423 patients infected with HCV who started treatment at eight different centers in Japan were enrolled in the study. Glecaprevir (300mg) and pibrentasvir (120mg) were given once daily for 8weeks to 246 non-cirrhotic direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-naive patients with HCV genotype (GT)-1 or-2, and for 12weeks to patients who: were DAA-naive cirrhotic (n = 55), had experienced DAA failure (n = 78), were cirrhotic and had DAA failure (n = 37), and were other GT-1/2 (n = 7). Anti-HCV efficacy was defined as a sustained virologic response 12weeks post-treatment (SVR12). The evaluation was undertaken in an intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients who were assessed at SVR12 (modified ITT population). In the ITT population, 220 (89%) patients on the 8-week regimen and 164 (93%) patients on the 12-week regimen achieved SVR12. The 30 dropout patients were predominantly men and with GT-2. All other DAA-naive GT-1 patients achieved SVR12. The 12-week regimen resulted in 100% SVR12 in 41 GT-2 patients. Nine patients did not achieve SVR12: two DAA naive with GT-2a, two GT-3b patients, two GT-1 patients with discontinuation, and three other GT-1 patients with a history of DAA failure. Four of seven patients who discontinued treatment due to severe adverse effects weremore than 75years old. Glecaprevir + pibrentasvir had a remarkable anti-HCV effect in GT-1 and GT-2 patients, but not in GT-3b patients. Although this therapy was reasonably safe, it is necessary to carefully consider elderly and dropout patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceftaroline for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftaroline with those of ceftriaxone for treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and clinicalTrials.gov databases were searched until April 2019. This meta-analysis only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ceftaroline and ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate, and the secondary outcome was the risk of adverse events (AEs). Five RCTs were included. Overall, at the test of cure (TOC), the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline was superior to the rates of ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP (modified intent-to-treat population (MITT) population, odds ratio (OR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–1.99, I2 = 0%; clinically evaluable (CE) population, OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07–1.78, I2 = 14%). Similarly, the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline was superior to that of ceftriaxone at the end of therapy (EOT) (MITT population, OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16–2.11, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.15–2.33, I2 = 0%). For adult patients, the clinical cure rate of ceftaroline remained superior to that of ceftriaxone at TOC (MITT population, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.34–2.06, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.80, I2 = 30%) and at EOT (MITT population, OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20–2.24, I2 = 0%; CE population, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.15–2.36, I2 = 0%). Ceftaroline and ceftriaxone did not differ significantly in the risk of serious AEs, treatment-emergent AEs, and discontinuation of the study drug owing to an AE. In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of ceftaroline is similar to that of ceftriaxone for the treatment of CAP. Furthermore, this antibiotic is as tolerable as ceftriaxone.

Migalastat: A Review in Fabry Disease.

Fabry disease is a rare lysosomal disorder characterized by deficient or absent α-galactosidase A activity resulting from mutations in the GLA gene. Migalastat (Galafold™), a pharmacological chaperone, stabilizes and facilitates trafficking of amenable mutant forms of α-galactosidase A enzyme from the endoplasmic reticulum to lysosomes and increases its lysosomal activity. Oral migalastat is the first pharmacological chaperone approved for treating patients [aged ≥ 18 years (USA and Canada) or ≥ 16 years in other countries] with Fabry disease who have a migalastat-amenable GLA mutation. In the FACETS trial in enzyme replacement therapy (ERT)-naive patients with GLA mutations amenable or non-amenable to migalastat, there was no significant difference between the migalastat and placebo groups for the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in the number of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) inclusions/kidney interstitial capillary (KIC) at 6 months [primary endpoint; intent-to-treat (ITT) population]. In the modified ITT population (i.e. patients with migalastat-amenable GLA mutations), relative to placebo, migalastat treatment significantly reduced the mean number of GL-3 inclusions/KIC and plasma lyso-globotriaosylsphingosine levels at 6 months. Among evaluable patients, migalastat maintained renal function and reduced cardiac mass after ≤ 24 months’ therapy. In the ATTRACT trial in ERT-experienced patients, renal function was maintained during 18 months of migalastat or ERT; however, migalastat significantly reduced cardiac mass compared with ERT. Migalastat was generally well tolerated in both of these trials. Given its convenient oral regimen and the limited therapeutic options available, migalastat is an important treatment option for Fabry disease in patients with migalastat-amenable GLA mutations.

Bosutinib or Imatinib in Older Vs Younger Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the Phase 3 BFORE Trial

Introduction: Bosutinib is approved for newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. Efficacy and safety of first-line bosutinib and imatinib were assessed in older vs younger patients in the ongoing phase 3 BFORE trial (NCT02130557). Methods: In all, 536 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive bosutinib or imatinib (400 mg once daily). We compared outcomes in patients aged ≥65 years (older group) vs Results: In the bosutinib arm (n=268), 53 were older and 215 were younger patients. In the imatinib arm (n=268; 3 untreated), 48 (2 untreated) were older and 220 (1 untreated) were younger patients. Sokal risk scores were balanced between treatment arms but higher in the overall older (8.9% low, 70.3% intermediate, 20.8% high) vs younger (44.1% low, 34.7% intermediate, 21.1% high) populations, reflecting that age is part of the score. Bosutinib was discontinued in 32.1% of older and 28.4% of younger patients; the most common primary reason was treatment-related adverse events (AEs; 18.9% and 15.3%, respectively). Imatinib was discontinued in 32.6% of older and 33.8% of younger patients, most frequently due to suboptimal response or treatment failure (13.0% and 13.2%, respectively). The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment due to treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was similar in the older vs younger group in both arms (bosutinib: 22.6% vs 19.1%; imatinib: 8.7% vs 12.3%). In older vs younger patients, median (range) duration of treatment was similar: 24.8 months (0.3-33.3) vs 24.9 months (0.3-33.5) for bosutinib and 25.6 months (2.9-33.1) vs 24.5 months (0.7-33.4) for imatinib. Median relative dose intensity was slightly lower in older vs younger patients in the bosutinib arm (92.8% vs 99.3%) but was 100% in both age groups in the imatinib arm. The difference in rates of major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months (primary endpoint) with bosutinib vs imatinib was consistent across age groups (older: 43.4% vs 35.4%; younger: 47.4% vs 36.4%; P=0.7879 for test of interaction), as was the difference in rates of CCyR by 12 months (older: 68.8% vs 69.0%; younger: 79.3% vs 65.8%; P=0.1689). MR rates at 24 months (and MR1 at 3 months) were generally similar in older vs younger patients within each arm and higher with bosutinib than with imatinib (Table 1). Time to achieve MMR on bosutinib was not different in older vs younger patients (hazard ratio: 1.227; P=0.2380, after adjustment for baseline and time-dependent covariates in a multivariable proportional subdistribution hazards model). Rates of common TEAEs in each treatment arm were similar ( Conclusions: In the phase 3 BFORE trial, bosutinib showed clinical activity in older and younger patients with newly diagnosed CP CML. Difference in rates of MMR at 12 months for bosutinib vs imatinib was consistent in older and younger patients. MR rates at 24 months were similar in older and younger patients and higher with bosutinib than with imatinib. Although the incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and dose modifications due to TEAEs were higher in older vs younger bosutinib-treated patients, treatment discontinuation rates were similar between age groups, suggesting that, regardless of patient age, TEAEs were manageable with bosutinib. Disclosures Deininger:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint: Consultancy. Kota:Pfizer: Honoraria; Xcenda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Lipton:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Milojkovic:Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Garcia Gutierrez:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Leip:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nick:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hochhaus:Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cortes:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. Brummendorf:Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Targeting intracellular signaling as an antiviral strategy: aerosolized LASAG for the treatment of influenza in hospitalized patients

Influenza has been a long-running health problem and novel antiviral drugs are urgently needed. In pre-clinical studies, we demonstrated broad antiviral activity of D, L-lysine-acetylsalicylate glycine (LASAG) against influenza virus (IV) in cell culture and protection against lethal challenge in mice. LASAG is a compound with a new antiviral mode of action. It inhibits the NF-κB signal transduction module that is essential for IV replication. Our goal was to determine whether aerosolized LASAG would also show a therapeutic benefit in hospitalized patients suffering from severe influenza. The primary endpoint was time to alleviation of clinical influenza symptoms. The primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. This included all patients with confirmed influenza virus infection who received at least one treatment. The per protocol (PP) analysis set included all subjects from the MITT population who underwent at least 13 inhalations. In the MITT group, 48 (41.7%) participants (29 LASAG; 19 placebo) had severe influenza. The mean time to symptom alleviation was 56.2 h in the placebo group and 43.0 h in the LASAG group. The PP set consisted of 41 patients (24 LASAG; 17 placebo). The mean time to symptom alleviation in the LASAG group (38.3 h; P = 0.0365) was lower than that in the placebo group (56.2 h). In conclusion, LASAG improved the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in hospitalized patients. The present phase II proof-of-concept (PoC) study demonstrates that targeting an intra-cellular signaling pathway using aerosolized LASAG improves the time to symptom alleviation compared to standard treatment.

Effect of Meropenem-Vaborbactam vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Clinical Cure or Improvement and Microbial Eradication in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection

Meropenem-vaborbactam is a combination carbapenem/beta-lactamase inhibitor and a potential treatment for severe drug-resistant gram-negative infections. To evaluate efficacy and adverse events of meropenem-vaborbactam in complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis. Phase 3, multicenter, multinational, randomized clinical trial (TANGO I) conducted November 2014 to April 2016 and enrolling patients (≥18 years) with complicated UTI, stratified by infection type and geographic region. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive meropenem-vaborbactam (2g/2g over 3 hours; n = 274) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4g/0.5g over 30 minutes; n = 276) every 8 hours. After 15 or more doses, patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin if they met prespecified criteria for improvement, to complete 10 days of total treatment. Primary end point for FDA criteria was overall success (clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication composite) at end of intravenous treatment in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Primary end point for European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria was microbial eradication at test-of-cure visit in the microbiologic modified ITT and microbiologic evaluable populations. Prespecified noninferiority margin was -15%. Because the protocol prespecified superiority testing in the event of noninferiority, 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated. Among 550 patients randomized, 545 received study drug (mean age, 52.8 years; 361 [66.2%] women; 374 [68.6%] in the microbiologic modified ITT population; 347 [63.7%] in the microbiologic evaluable population; 508 [93.2%] completed the trial). For the FDA primary end point, overall success occurred in 189 of 192 (98.4%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 171 of 182 (94.0%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 4.5% [95% CI, 0.7% to 9.1%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the EMA primary end point, microbial eradication in the microbiologic modified ITT population occurred in 128 of 192 (66.7%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 105 of 182 (57.7%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 9.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 18.7%]; P < .001 for noninferiority); microbial eradication in the microbiologic evaluable population occurred in 118 of 178 (66.3%) vs 102 of 169 (60.4%) (difference, 5.9% [95% CI, -4.2% to 16.0%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Adverse events were reported in 106 of 272 (39.0%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 97 of 273 (35.5%) with piperacillin-tazobactam. Among patients with complicated UTI, including acute pyelonephritis and growth of a baseline pathogen, meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam resulted in a composite outcome of complete resolution or improvement of symptoms along with microbial eradication that met the noninferiority criterion. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients in whom meropenem-vaborbactam offers a clinical advantage. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166476.

Seladelpar (MBX-8025), a selective PPAR-δ agonist, in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept study

Many patients with primary biliary cholangitis have an inadequate response to first-line therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid. Seladelpar is a potent, selective agonist for the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-delta (PPAR-δ), which is implicated in bile acid homoeostasis. This first-in-class study evaluated the anti-cholestatic effects and safety of seladelpar in patients with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. The study was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of patients with alkaline phosphatase of at least 1·67 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) despite treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients, recruited at 29 sites in North America and Europe, were randomly assigned to placebo, seladelpar 50 mg/day, or seladelpar 200 mg/day while ursodeoxycholic acid was continued. Randomisation was done centrally (1:1:1) by a computerised system using an interactive voice-web response system with a block size of three. Randomisation was stratified by region (North America and Europe). The primary outcome was the percentage change from baseline in alkaline phosphatase over 12 weeks, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (any randomised patient who received at least one dose of medication and had at least one post-baseline alkaline phosphatase evaluation). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02609048) and the EU Clinical Trials Registry (EudraCT2015-002698-39). Between Nov 4, 2015, and May 26, 2016, 70 patients were screened at 29 sites in North America and Europe. During recruitment, three patients treated with seladelpar developed fully reversible, asymptomatic grade 3 alanine aminotransferase increases (one on 50 mg, two on 200 mg), ranging from just over five to 20 times the ULN; as a result, the study was terminated after 41 patients were randomly assigned. The modified ITT population consisted of 12 patients in the placebo group, 13 in the seladelpar 50 mg group, and 10 in the seladelpar 200 mg group. Mean changes from baseline in alkaline phosphatase were -2% (SD 16) in the placebo group, -53% (14) in the seladelpar 50 mg group, and -63% (8) in the seladelpar 200 mg group. Changes in both seladelpar groups versus placebo were significant (p<0·0001 for both groups vs placebo), with no significant difference between the two seladelpar groups (p=0·1729). All five patients who received seladelpar for 12 weeks had normal alkaline phosphatase values at the end of treatment, based on a central laboratory ULN for alkaline phosphatase of 116 U/L. The most frequently reported adverse events were pruritus (16%; one patient on placebo, four on seladelpar 50 mg, and one on seladelpar 200 mg), nausea (13%; one patient on placebo, three on seladelpar 50 mg, and one on seladelpar 200 mg), diarrhoea (10%; two patients on placebo, one on seladelpar 50 mg, and one on seladelpar 200 mg), dyspepsia (8%; two patients on seladelpar 50 mg and one on seladelpar 200 mg), muscle spasms (8%; three patients on seladelpar 200 mg), myalgia (8%; one patient on placebo and two on seladelpar 200 mg), and dizziness (8%; one patient on placebo and two on seladelpar 50 mg). Seladelpar normalised alkaline phosphatase levels in patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment. However, treatment was associated with grade 3 increases in aminotransferases and the study was stopped early. The effects of seladelpar should be explored at lower doses. CymaBay Therapeutics.

Efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in patients with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial

Phase 1 studies have shown potential benefit of gene replacement in RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy. This phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of voretigene neparvovec in participants whose inherited retinal dystrophy would otherwise progress to complete blindness. In this open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done at two sites in the USA, individuals aged 3 years or older with, in each eye, best corrected visual acuity of 20/60 or worse, or visual field less than 20 degrees in any meridian, or both, with confirmed genetic diagnosis of biallelic RPE65 mutations, sufficient viable retina, and ability to perform standardised multi-luminance mobility testing (MLMT) within the luminance range evaluated, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention or control using a permuted block design, stratified by age (<10 years and ≥10 years) and baseline mobility testing passing level (pass at ≥125 lux vs <125 lux). Graders assessing primary outcome were masked to treatment group. Intervention was bilateral, subretinal injection of 1·5 × 1011 vector genomes of voretigene neparvovec in 0·3 mL total volume. The primary efficacy endpoint was 1-year change in MLMT performance, measuring functional vision at specified light levels. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00999609, and enrolment is complete. Between Nov 15, 2012, and Nov 21, 2013, 31 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to intervention (n=21) or control (n=10). One participant from each group withdrew after consent, before intervention, leaving an mITT population of 20 intervention and nine control participants. At 1 year, mean bilateral MLMT change score was 1·8 (SD 1·1) light levels in the intervention group versus 0·2 (1·0) in the control group (difference of 1·6, 95% CI 0·72-2·41, p=0·0013). 13 (65%) of 20 intervention participants, but no control participants, passed MLMT at the lowest luminance level tested (1 lux), demonstrating maximum possible improvement. No product-related serious adverse events or deleterious immune responses occurred. Two intervention participants, one with a pre-existing complex seizure disorder and another who experienced oral surgery complications, had serious adverse events unrelated to study participation. Most ocular events were mild in severity. Voretigene neparvovec gene replacement improved functional vision in RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophy previously medically untreatable. Spark Therapeutics.

Organ preservation for rectal cancer (GRECCAR 2): a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Organ preservation is a concept proposed for patients with rectal cancer after a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to potentially avoid morbidity and side-effects of rectal excision. The objective of this study was to compare local excision and total mesorectal excision in patients with a good response after chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer. We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial at 15 tertiary centres in France that were experts in the treatment of rectal cancer. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage T2T3 lower rectal carcinoma, of maximum size 4 cm, who had a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were centrally randomly assigned by the surgeon before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision surgery. Randomisation, which was done via the internet, was not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was required if tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death, recurrence, morbidity, and side-effects at 2 years after surgery, to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (expected proportions of patients having at least one event were 25% vs 60% for superiority). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. From March 1, 2007, to Sept 24, 2012, 186 patients received chemoradiotherapy and were enrolled in the study. 148 good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three were excluded (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, and withdrew consent), and 145 were analysed: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. In the local excision group, 26 patients had a completion total mesorectal excision. At 2 years in the modified ITT population, one or more events from the composite primary outcome occurred in 41 (56%) of 73 patients in the local excision group and 33 (48%) of 69 in the total mesorectal excision group (odds ratio 1·33, 95% CI 0·62-2·86; p=0·43). In the modified ITT analysis, there was no difference between the groups in all components of the composite outcome, and superiority was not shown for local excision over total mesorectal excision. We failed to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision, because many patients in the local excision group received a completion total mesorectal excision that probably increased morbidity and side-effects, and compromised the potential advantages of local excision. Better patient selection to avoid unnecessary completion total mesorectal excision could improve the strategy. National Cancer Institute of France, Sanofi, Roche Pharma.

A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence.

RBC-transfusion dependence is common in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-associated myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of RBC-transfusion independence after therapy with pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Two hundred and fifty-two subjects (intent-to-treat (ITT) population) including 229 subjects confirmed by central review (modified ITT population) were randomly assigned (2:1) to pomalidomide or placebo. Trialists and subjects were blinded to treatment allocation. Primary end point was proportion of subjects achieving RBC-transfusion independence within 6 months. One hundred and fifty-two subjects received pomalidomide and 77 placebo. Response rates were 16% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11, 23%) vs 16% (8, 26%; P=0.87). Response in the pomalidomide cohort was associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (odds ratio (OR)=3.1; 0.9, 11.1), age ⩽65 (OR=2.3; 0.9, 5.5) and type of MPN-associated myelofibrosis (OR=2.6; 0.7, 9.5). Responses in the placebo cohort were associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (OR=8.6; 0.9, 82.3), white blood cell at randomization >25 × 109/l (OR=4.9; 0.8, 28.9) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 years (OR=4.9; 1.1, 21.9). Pomalidomide was associated with increased rates of oedema and neutropenia but these adverse effects were manageable. Pomalidomide and placebo had similar RBC-transfusion-independence response rates in persons with MPN-associated RBC-transfusion dependence.

A randomized study of pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence

RBC-transfusion dependence is common in persons with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-associated myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of RBC-transfusion independence after therapy with pomalidomide vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. Two hundred and fifty-two subjects (intent-to-treat (ITT) population) including 229 subjects confirmed by central review (modified ITT population) were randomly assigned (2:1) to pomalidomide or placebo. Trialists and subjects were blinded to treatment allocation. Primary end point was proportion of subjects achieving RBC-transfusion independence within 6 months. One hundred and fifty-two subjects received pomalidomide and 77 placebo. Response rates were 16% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11, 23%) vs 16% (8, 26%; P=0.87). Response in the pomalidomide cohort was associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (odds ratio (OR)=3.1; 0.9, 11.1), age ⩽65 (OR=2.3; 0.9, 5.5) and type of MPN-associated myelofibrosis (OR=2.6; 0.7, 9.5). Responses in the placebo cohort were associated with ⩽4 U RBC/28 days (OR=8.6; 0.9, 82.3), white blood cell at randomization >25 × 109/l (OR=4.9; 0.8, 28.9) and interval from diagnosis to randomization >2 years (OR=4.9; 1.1, 21.9). Pomalidomide was associated with increased rates of oedema and neutropenia but these adverse effects were manageable. Pomalidomide and placebo had similar RBC-transfusion-independence response rates in persons with MPN-associated RBC-transfusion dependence.

Expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (Cx601) for complex perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind controlled trial

Complex perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease are challenging to treat. Allogeneic, expanded, adipose-derived stem cells (Cx601) are a promising new therapeutic approach. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of Cx601 for treatment-refractory complex perianal fistulas in patients with Crohn's disease. We did this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study at 49 hospitals in seven European countries and Israel from July 6, 2012, to July 27, 2015. Adult patients (≥18 years) with Crohn's disease and treatment-refractory, draining complex perianal fistulas were randomly assigned (1:1) using a pre-established randomisation list to a single intralesional injection of 120 million Cx601 cells or 24 mL saline solution (placebo), with stratification according to concomitant baseline treatment. Treatment was administered by an unmasked surgeon, with a masked gastroenterologist and radiologist assessing the therapeutic effect. The primary endpoint was combined remission at week 24 (ie, clinical assessment of closure of all treated external openings that were draining at baseline, and absence of collections >2 cm of the treated perianal fistulas confirmed by masked central MRI). Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations; safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01541579. 212 patients were randomly assigned: 107 to Cx601 and 105 to placebo. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with Cx601 versus placebo achieved combined remission in the ITT (53 of 107 [50%] vs 36 of 105 [34%]; difference 15·2%, 97·5% CI 0·2-30·3; p=0·024) and modified ITT populations (53 of 103 [51%] vs 36 of 101 [36%]; 15·8%, 0·5-31·2; p=0·021). 18 (17%) of 103 patients in the Cx601 group versus 30 (29%) of 103 in the placebo group experienced treatment-related adverse events, the most common of which were anal abscess (six in the Cx601 group vs nine in the placebo group) and proctalgia (five vs nine). Cx601 is an effective and safe treatment for complex perianal fistulas in patients with Crohn's disease who did not respond to conventional or biological treatments, or both. TiGenix.

The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.

The aim was to assess gabapentin enacarbil (GEn) treatment effects on quality of life (QOL) and mood in adults with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS). Data were pooled from three placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trials for adults receiving GEn (600mg or 1200mg) or placebo once daily. QOL was assessed with the RLS QOL questionnaire in two studies. Mood was examined with the Profile of Mood States Brief Form (POMS-B), and as an exploratory analysis with International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) item 9 (daily affairs) and item 10 (mood disturbance) across all three studies. Mood and QOL were secondary endpoints in the individual clinical trials. No adjustments for multiplicity were applied. The QOL analysis modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population included 541 adults (placebo, n=204; GEn 600mg, n=114; GEn 1200mg, n=223). Both GEn doses significantly improved QOL versus placebo (week 12; p<0.01). The mood analysis MITT population included 671 adults (placebo, n=244; GEn 600mg, n=161; GEn 1200mg, n=266). GEn 600mg significantly improved POMS vigor-activity versus placebo (week 12; p<0.05); other POMS criteria were not significantly affected. GEn 1200mg significantly improved POMS scores for total mood disturbance, depression-dejection, fatigue-inertia, vigor-activity, and confusion-bewilderment versus placebo at week 12 (p<0.05); tension-anxiety and anger-hostility were not significantly affected. Both GEn doses significantly improved IRLS item 9 and item 10 versus placebo at week 12 (p<0.05). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events with GEn were somnolence and dizziness. GEn (600mg and 1200mg) once daily significantly improved QOL in adults with moderate-to-severe primary RLS at all time points examined. While the only POMS item significantly improved by GEn 600mg versus placebo at week 12 was vigor-activity, GEn 1200mg significantly improved total mood disturbance and several other POMS items versus placebo at week 12. Both QOL and mood improvements were numerically greater with GEn 1200mg versus 600mg. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00298623, NCT00365352, NCT01332305.

Effects of the Acetylcholine Release Agent ST101 with Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomized Phase 2 Study

ST101, an acetylcholine release agent with efficacy in rodent memory and cognition models, was assessed for clinical safety and efficacy. A phase 2 double blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled 210 AD patients (MMSE 10-20) on 10 mg donepezil QD. Patients received ST101 (10, 60, or 120 mg QD) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in cognitive function measured by ADAS-cog in the modified Intent To Treat (MITT) population and the Per Protocol (PP) population. Mean ADAS-cog change favored ST101 over placebo in the MITT population (p = 0.0957, one-sided) and in the PP population (p = 0.0434, one-sided, ∼1.5 point drug-placebo difference) comparing all ST101 dose groups combined to placebo. Among secondary and exploratory outcome measures the ADCS-CGIC also showed a beneficial trend (p = 0.0294, one-sided). In a post-hoc analysis, the subgroup with more severe disease (MMSE 10-17) showed a dose response in the ADAS-cog with the greatest efficacy at 120 mg (p = 0.0067, one sided). No significant ST101-related safety concerns were identified. The study supports the possibility that ST101, in patients receiving a stable dose of donepezil, may provide additional symptomatic benefit in moderate AD.

Evaluation of an early step-down strategy from intravenous anidulafungin to oral azole therapy for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: results from an open-label trial

BackgroundHospitalized patients are at increased risk for candidemia and invasive candidiasis (C/IC). Improved therapeutic regimens with enhanced clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes utilizing existing antifungal agents are still needed.MethodsAn open-label, non-comparative study evaluated an intravenous (IV) to oral step-down strategy. Patients with C/IC were treated with IV anidulafungin and after 5 days of IV therapy had the option to step-down to oral azole therapy (fluconazole or voriconazole) if they met prespecified criteria. The primary endpoint was the global response rate (clinical + microbiological) at end of treatment (EOT) in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (at least one dose of anidulafungin plus positive Candida within 96 hours of study entry). Secondary endpoints included efficacy at other time points and in predefined patient subpopulations. Patients who stepped down early (≤ 7 days’ anidulafungin) were identified as the "early switch" subpopulation.ResultsIn total, 282 patients were enrolled, of whom 250 were included in the MITT population. The MITT global response rate at EOT was 83.7% (95% confidence interval, 78.7–88.8). Global response rates at all time points were generally similar in the early switch subpopulation compared with the MITT population. Global response rates were also similar across multiple Candida species, including C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea and vomiting (four patients each).ConclusionsA short course of IV anidulafungin, followed by early step-down to oral azole therapy, is an effective and well-tolerated approach for the treatment of C/IC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00496197

Abstract OT1-1-05: A Phase I pharmacokinetics trial comparing PF-05280014 and trastuzumab in healthy volunteers (REFLECTIONS B327-01)

Abstract Background: Trastuzumab is a humanized recombinant monoclonal antibody that selectively binds the extracellular domain of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and is approved for treatment of breast and gastric cancers. PF05280014 is being developed as a potential biosimilar to trastuzumab. In nonclinical evaluations, PF-05280014 has an identical amino acid sequence to trastuzumab and similar physicochemical and in vitro functional properties. The goal of this phase I trial is to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic similarity of PF-05280014 to trastuzumab sourced from both the United States (trastuzumab-US) and European Union (trastuzumab-EU). Trial design: In this double-blind, parallel group, single dose trial, subjects will be randomized 1:1:1 into 3 arms: PF-05280014; trastuzumab-US, and trastuzumab-EU (NCT01603264). Eligibility: Healthy male volunteers, 18–55 years of age with normal left ventricular ejection fraction are eligible. Multiple exclusion criteria common to Phase 1 trials are in effect. All subjects must provide informed consent. Aims: The primary objectives are to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic similarity of PF-05280014 to trastuzumab-US and trastuzumab-EU. Secondary objectives include evaluating the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of PF-05280014 compared with US-licensed and EU-approved trastuzumab products. Statistical methods: Pharmacokinetic similarity will be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of the area under the concentration-versus-time curve from time 0 to the last time point with quantifiable concentration (AUCT) and maximum concentration (Cmax) of PF-05280014 to both trastuzumab-US and trastuzumab-EU are within 80%–125%. At least 93 subjects, 31/arm, will be needed to provide &amp;gt;81% power to demonstrate pharmacokinetic similarity for all comparisons. The planned enrolment is 105 subjects to account for subjects who may not complete the full follow-up period. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population is defined as all subjects who are randomized to receive treatment. The modified ITT population is defined as all subjects who are randomized and receive at least one dose of treatment and will be used to assess safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity. The per-protocol population is defined as all subjects who are randomized to and receive treatment and do not have any major protocol violations and will be used for the primary evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters. Accrual: The target accrual is 105 subjects; present accrual is 17subjects. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-1-05.

A network meta-analysis of antibiotics for treatment of hospitalised patients with suspected or proven meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection

Infections due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pose a serious health risk. Novel methods for assessing comparative effectiveness and safety may provide valuable insights into therapeutic choices. We did a systematic review searching electronic databases including the archives of FDA/CDER and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare parenteral antibiotics used for treating hospitalised adults with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) or hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). Models were adjusted for clinical heterogeneity due to between-arm differences in the proportion of patients with diabetes (for cSSTI) and in those requiring mechanical ventilation (for pneumonia). Treatments were ranked on efficacy, defined as clinical success in the modified intention-to-treat population (MITT) and in the MITT population with MRSA at baseline (MRSA m-MITT), on all-cause mortality (in pneumonia only), and on serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We identified 24 randomised controlled trials (17 for cSSTI and 10 for HAP/VAP) comparing one of six antibiotics with vancomycin. The network meta-analysis indicated that vancomycin ranked third (of six antibiotics) in cSSTI and second (of four) in pneumonia on both efficacy and safety. However, direct pairwise meta-analyses remained inconclusive as evidenced by the adjusted median odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% credible intervals. In cSSTI, linezolid and ceftaroline were non-significantly more effective than vancomycin. Linezolid ORs were 1.15 (0.74–1.71) and 1.01 (0.42–2.14) and ceftaroline ORs were 1.12 (0.78–1.64) and 1.59 (0.68–3.74) in the MITT and MRSA m-MITT populations, respectively. For HAP/VAP, linezolid was non-significantly better than vancomycin, with ORs of 1.05 (0.72–1.57) and 1.32 (0.71–2.48) in the MITT and MRSA m-MITT populations, respectively. We suspect performance and detection bias in cSSTI trials involving linezolid, but regression methods could not adjust for this potential bias. In these clinical trials, the preferred agents for treating serious MRSA infections were ceftaroline (for cSSTI, not studied in HAP/VAP) and linezolid. However, translation of these findings into practice should consider the small size of the evidence networks and the consequent uncertainty associated with the parameter estimates, the lack of evidence for ceftaroline in patients with severe renal impairment, and the lower internal validity of some of the linezolid trials.

Anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia/invasive candidiasis in selected critically ill patients

A prospective, multicentre, phase IIIb study with an exploratory, open-label design was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia/invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in specific ICU patient populations. Adult ICU patients with confirmed C/IC meeting ≥1 of the following criteria were enrolled: post-abdominal surgery, solid tumour, renal/hepatic insufficiency, solid organ transplant, neutropaenia, and age ≥65 years. Patients received anidulafungin (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg/day thereafter) for 10–42 days, optionally followed by oral voriconazole/fluconazole. The primary efficacy endpoint was global (clinical and microbiological) response at the end of all therapy (EOT). Secondary endpoints included global response at the end of intravenous therapy (EOIVT) and at 2 and 6 weeks post-EOT, survival at day 90, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population, excluding unknown/missing responses. The safety and MITT populations consisted of 216 and 170 patients, respectively. The most common pathogens were Candida albicans (55.9%), C. glabrata (14.7%) and C. parapsilosis (10.0%). Global success was 69.5% (107/154; 95% CI, 61.6–76.6) at EOT, 70.7% (111/157) at EOIVT, 60.2% (77/128) at 2 weeks post-EOT, and 50.5% (55/109) at 6 weeks post-EOT. When unknown/missing responses were included as failures, the respective success rates were 62.9%, 65.3%, 45.3% and 32.4%. Survival at day 90 was 53.8%. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 33/216 (15.3%) patients, four (1.9%) of whom had serious AEs. Anidulafungin was effective, safe and well tolerated for the treatment of C/IC in selected groups of ICU patients.