Trials In Treatment-naive Patients Research Articles

Prevalence of Macular Atrophy in the MARINA Study of Ranibizumab versus Sham for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Determine prevalence, progression rates, and associations of newly detectable macular atrophy (MA) in patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) with/without ranibizumab treatment. Post hoc analysis of MA in patients with occult/minimally classic nAMD who received monthly intravitreal ranibizumab (0.3 or 0.5 mg) or sham injections for 24 months (M) in MARINA, a phase III trial in treatment-naive patients (NCT00056836). Seven hundred six patients with nAMD: ranibizumab 0.3 mg, n= 236; 0.5 mg, n= 237; sham, n=233. Macular atrophy, assessed by color fundus photographs/fluorescein angiography, was classified as "within," "adjacent," or "nonadjacent" to the original CNV lesion. Factors associated with MA were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Prevalence/incidence of newly detectable MA over time, association with CNV area, MA progression rate, association of MA with visual acuity (VA), changes in CNV/leakage area, and factors predictive of new MA at 24M. At 24M, new MA was detected in 36.8%, 40.4%, and 21.0% of eyes for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, 0.5 mg, and sham, respectively, most frequently within the area of the baseline CNV lesion (93.2%, 85.0%, and 69.0%). Rate of MA progression was similar across arms (∼ 0.3 to 0.4 mm/year). There was strong association between absence of fibrosis and detectable MA (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-5.56), whereas an association was not identified between detectable MA and baseline VA, baseline fellow eye atrophy, ranibizumab treatment, or change in leakage/CNV area at 24M. Ranibizumab-treated eyes gained VA with (0.3 mg: 5.3 letters [95% CI, -3.3, 13.8]; 0.5 mg: 9.8 [4.7-15.0]) or without new MA (0.3 mg: 6.4 [4.1-8.6]; 0.5 mg: 8.0 [5.3-10.6]), whereas VA in sham-treated eyes deteriorated with/without new MA (-14.7 [-23.6, -5.8] and-14.0 [-16.9, -11.1], respectively). New MA was more frequently detected in ranibizumab-treated than sham-treated eyes. Macular atrophy progression was similar across arms. Multivariate analysis showed that absence of fibrosis was the only variable associated with increased MA. Regardless of MA presence/location at baseline or throughout the study, ranibizumab-treated eyes showed clinically significant improvements in VA, whereas VA in sham-treated eyes worsened. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Effectiveness of fenofibrate in treatment-naïve patients with primary biliary cholangitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a progressive autoimmune liver disease, and patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment show reduced long-term survival. Recent studies have shown that fenofibrate is an effective off-label therapy for PBC. However, prospective studies on biochemical response including timing of fenofibrate administration are lacking. This study is aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibrate in UDCA treatment- naïve patients with PBC. A total of 117 treatment-naïve patients with PBC were recruited from the Xijing Hospital for a 12-month randomized, parallel and open-label clinical trial. Study participants were assigned to receive either UDCA standard dose (UDCA-only group) or fenofibrate at a daily dose of 200 mg in addition to UDCA (UDCA-Fenofibrate group). Primary outcome was biochemical response percentage in patients according to the Barcelona criterion at 12 month. In the UDCA-Fenofibrate group, 81.4% [69.9-92.9%] of the patients achieved the primary outcome and 64.3% [51.9-76.8%] in the UDCA-only group achieved (p = 0.048). There was no difference between two groups in noninvasive measures of liver fibrosis and biochemical markers other than alkaline phosphatase at 12 months. Creatinine and transaminases levels in the UDCA-Fenofibrate group increased within the first month, then returned to normal, and remained stable thereafter until the end of the study, even in patients with cirrhosis. In this randomized clinical trial in treatment-naïve patients with PBC, the combination of fenofibrate and UDCA resulted in a significantly higher biochemical response rate. Fenofibrate seemed to be well-tolerated in patients.

Quality measure attainment with dapagliflozin plus metformin extended-release as initial combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc pooled analysis of two clinical studies.

BackgroundThe use of quality measures attempts to improve safety and health outcomes and to reduce costs. In two Phase III trials in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, dapagliflozin 5 or 10 mg/d as initial combination therapy with metformin extended-release (XR) significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1C) from baseline to 24 weeks and allowed higher proportions of patients to achieve A1C <7% vs dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy.ObjectiveA pooled analysis of data from these two studies assessed the effect of dapagliflozin 5 or 10 mg/d plus metformin XR (combination therapy) compared with placebo plus metformin XR (metformin monotherapy) on diabetes quality measures. Quality measures include laboratory measures of A1C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as vital status measures of blood pressure (BP) and body mass index (BMI). The proportion of patients achieving A1C, BP, and LDL-C individual and composite measures was assessed, as was the proportion with baseline BMI ≥25 kg/m2 who lost ≥4.5 kg. Subgroup analyses by baseline BMI were also performed.ResultsA total of 194 and 211 patients were treated with dapagliflozin 5- or 10-mg/d combination therapy, respectively, and 409 with metformin monotherapy. Significantly higher proportions of patients achieved A1C ≤6.5%, <7%, or <8% with combination therapy vs metformin monotherapy (P<0.02). Significantly higher proportions of patients achieved BP <140/90 mmHg (P<0.02 for each dapagliflozin dose) and BP <130/80 mmHg (P<0.02 with dapagliflozin 5 mg/d only) with combination therapy vs metformin monotherapy. Similar proportions (29%–33%) of patients had LDL-C <100 mg/dL across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients with baseline BMI ≥25 kg/m2 lost ≥4.5 kg with combination therapy. Combination therapy had a more robust effect on patients with higher baseline BMI.ConclusionInitial combination therapy with dapagliflozin 5 or 10 mg/d and metformin improved quality measures relevant to clinical outcomes and diabetes care.

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial

BackgroundIn a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. Patients and MethodsPreviously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). ResultsMedian OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. ConclusionOS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.

Overall survival analysis from a randomized phase II study of axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

4545 Background: In a randomized phase II trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with axitinib versus ...

Dapagliflozin, metformin XR, or both: initial pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, a randomised controlled trial

Combining metformin (XR) with dapagliflozin to initiate pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high baseline HbA1c may be advantageous. We conducted two randomised, double-blind, three-arm 24-week trials in treatment-naïve patients to compare dapagliflozin plus metformin, dapagliflozin alone and metformin alone. Eligible patients had baseline HbA1c 7.5-12%. Each trial had three arms: dapagliflozin plus metformin, dapagliflozin monotherapy and metformin monotherapy. Dapagliflozin in combination and as monotherapy was dosed at 5 mg (Study 1) and 10 mg (Study 2). Metformin in combination and as monotherapy was titrated to 2000 mg. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline; secondary endpoints included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and weight. In both trials, combination therapy led to significantly greater reductions in HbA1c compared with either monotherapy: -2.05 for dapagliflozin + metformin, -1.19 for dapagliflozin, and -1.35 for metformin (p < 0.0001) (Study 1); -1.98 for dapagliflozin + metformin, -1.45 for dapagliflozin and -1.44 for metformin (p < 0.0001) (Study 2). Combination therapy was statistically superior to monotherapy in reduction of FPG (p < 0.0001 for both studies); combination therapy was more effective than metformin for weight reduction (p < 0.0001). Dapagliflozin 10 mg was non-inferior to metformin in reducing HbA1c (Study 2). Events suggestive of genital infection were reported in 6.7%, 6.9% and 2.0% (Study 1) and 8.5%, 12.8% and 2.4% (Study 2) of patients in combination, dapagliflozin and metformin groups; events suggestive of urinary tract infection were reported in 7.7%, 7.9% and 7.5% (Study 1) and 7.6%, 11.0% and 4.3% (Study 2) of patients in the respective groups. No major hypoglycaemia was reported. In treatment-naïve patients with T2D, dapagliflozin plus metformin was generally well tolerated and effective in reducing HbA1c, FPG and weight. Dapagliflozin-induced glucosuria led to an increase in events suggestive of urinary tract and genital infections.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001). Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Tibotec.

Sitagliptin/Metformin Fixed-Dose Combination

Sitagliptin/metformin is a single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and the biguanide antihyperglycaemic metformin that achieves greater improvements in glycaemic control than either component alone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recommended dosages of sitagliptin plus metformin, either as the fixed-dose tablet or a combination of the individual agents, significantly reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in two well designed clinical trials in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. The improvements in glycaemic control seen with sitagliptin plus metformin therapy after 18 or 24 weeks were greater than those observed with the individual components alone and/or placebo, and sustained over treatment durations of up to 2 years. As add-on therapy in treatment-experienced patients with inadequate glycaemic control, the HbA(1c)-lowering efficacy of sitagliptin plus metformin was noninferior to that of glimepiride plus metformin in a 30-week, double-blind trial. Sitagliptin plus metformin and glipizide plus metformin lowered HbA(1c) levels by generally similar magnitudes, with the noninferiority of sitagliptin plus metformin to glipizide plus metformin being established in one 52-week study. As part of triple combination therapy, also in treatment-experienced patients with inadequate glycaemic control, sitagliptin added to ongoing glimepiride with or without metformin or ongoing insulin with or without metformin significantly improved glycaemic control over 24 weeks. Sitagliptin plus metformin, as the fixed-dose tablet or a combination of the individual agents, was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes, and was associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

Raltegravir

Raltegravir, a first-in-class, oral HIV type-1 (HIV-1) integrase inhibitor, blocks the covalent integration of HIV-1 complementary DNA into the host genome. In a large, randomized, double-blind, multinational, ongoing trial in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection, raltegravir 400 mg twice daily was noninferior to efavirenz 600 mg once daily in achieving plasma HIV-1 RNA viral levels of <50 copies/mL after 48 weeks' treatment (primary endpoint), when used as part of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) combination regimen. The time to achieve a virological response was significantly shorter in the raltegravir group than in the efavirenz group. Furthermore, significantly more raltegravir than efavirenz recipients achieved HIV-1 RNA viral levels of <50 copies/mL at weeks 2-16. The efficacy of raltegravir in achieving HIV-1 RNA levels of <50 copies/mL was also demonstrated in subgroups of patients separated according to baseline viral levels, CD4+ cell counts and viral subtypes. Preliminary evidence suggests that both virological and CD4+ cell count improvements were maintained at 96 weeks for treatment-naive recipients of raltegravir 400 mg twice daily. As part of an ART combination regimen, raltegravir treatment was generally well tolerated and was associated with significantly fewer drug-related adverse events than efavirenz treatment. Moreover, after 96 weeks, raltegravir treatment was associated with a significantly lower impact on serum lipid levels than efavirenz treatment.

Saxagliptin

Saxagliptin and its active metabolite M2 are dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors that improve glycaemic control by preventing the inactivation of the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. This increases GLP-1 levels, stimulates insulin secretion and reduces postprandial glucagon and glucose levels. In well designed, 24-week trials in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, monotherapy with oral saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control, as measured by mean glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels, relative to placebo. In large, well designed, 24-week trials, combination therapy with saxagliptin 5 mg once daily plus metformin significantly improved HbA(1c) levels relative to single-agent saxagliptin or metformin in treatment-naive patients; in treatment-experienced patients with inadequate glycaemic control, the addition of saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg once daily to metformin, glyburide or a thiazolidinedione, significantly improved HbA(1c) levels relative to continued use of existing monotherapy. Saxagliptin as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antihyperglycaemics was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. In clinical trials, the incidence of hypoglycaemic events in patients receiving saxagliptin was generally similar to that in patients receiving placebo or other oral antihyperglycaemic agents. Saxagliptin therapy was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events according to pooled data from eight clinical trials. Saxagliptin generally had a weight-neutral effect.

Tenofovir-Emtricitabine-Efavirenz in HIV-I-Infected Adults in Senegal: A 96-Week Pilot Trial in Treatment-Naive Patients

We report the results of a pilot open-label trial of a tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC)/efavirenz (EFV) combination conducted in Dakar, Senegal. Forty HIV-1-infected patients, naive of antiretroviral treatment and without active opportunistic disease, were included and followed through 96 weeks. At weeks 48 and 96, respectively, 82.5% and 85% of patients had HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL (72.5% and 77.5% with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL). Between baseline and week 96, the mean (SD) CD4 count increased from 126 (102) to 338 (155) cells/mm(3). The mean (SD) creatinine clearance decreased from 92 (36) to 73 (19) mL/min (P = .001). Treatment adherence was at least 94% at all scheduled visits. The efficacy and tolerability of a TDF/FTC/EFV combination were high and similar to those observed in Northern countries. This drug combination can be recommended in limited-resource countries, as did the World Health Organization (WHO) and should be made readily available as a fixed-dose combination.

Maraviroc: perspectives for use in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients

Maraviroc (Pfizer's UK-427857, Selzentry or Celsentri outside the USA) is the first agent in the new class of oral HIV-1 entry inhibitors to acquire approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency. Considering the mechanism of action, it is expected that this drug will be effective only in a subpopulation of HIV-1-infected people, namely those harbouring the R5 virus. The favourable toxicity profile of the drug has been demonstrated in Phase III clinical trials in treatment-naive (MERIT) and treatment-experienced (MOTIVATE) patients. In the latter population, maraviroc showed a superior antiviral efficacy and immunological activity compared with optimized backbone therapy + placebo. However, in MERIT, a prospective double-blind, randomized trial in treatment-naive patients, maraviroc + zidovudine/lamivudine failed to prove non-inferiority to efavirenz + zidovudine/lamivudine as standard of care regimen in the 48 week intention-to-treat analysis. Using an assay with higher sensitivity for minority CXCR4-using (X4) HIV variants (the enhanced Trofile assay-Monogram), non-inferiority was reached for the maraviroc- versus efavirenz-based combination. These data indicate the important impact of the sensitivity of tropism testing on treatment outcome of maraviroc-containing regimens. This paper discusses both the prospective and retrospective analyses of the MERIT data and highlights the impact of these results on daily practice in HIV care.

Darunavir

Darunavir

Poor Efficacy and Tolerability of Stavudine, Didanosine, and Efavirenz-based Regimen in Treatment-Naive Patients in Senegal.

ObjectiveTo study the effectiveness and tolerance of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen composed of the antiretroviral agents (ARVs) stavudine (d4T) plus didanosine (ddI) plus efavirenz (EFV) in patients with advanced HIV infection in Senegal.Design and methodsThis was an open-label, single-arm, 18-month trial in treatment-naive patients. The primary virologic end point was the percentage of patients with plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/mL at months 6 (M6), 12 (M12) and 18 (M18). The primary analysis was done as intent-to-treat.ResultsThe staging of HIV disease, performed using the definitions of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was CDC stage B or C for all 40 recruited patients. At baseline, the mean CD4+ cell count was 133 ± 92/mcL (± standard deviation [SD]; range 1–346), and 23% of patients had CD4+ cell counts below 50/mcL. The mean baseline plasma HIV RNA level was 5.5 ± 0.4 log10 copies/mL (± SD; range 4.6–5.9). The proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA below 500 copies/mL fell during the study from 73% (95% CI [56; 85]) at M6 to 56% (95% CI [41; 73]) at M12 and 43% (95% CI [27; 59]) at M18. Plasma HIV-RNA was below 50 copies/mL in 50% of study subjects (95% CI [31; 66]) at M6, 43% (95% CI [27; 59]) at M12, and 33% (95% CI [19; 49]) at M18.The mean increase in the CD4+ cell count was 105 ± 125/mcL (n = 38) at M3 and 186 ± 122/mcL (n = 21) at M18. Eight patients died, including 6 because of infectious complications. The last viral load (VL) value before death was < 500 copies/mL in all these patients except 1 nonadherent patient. Fifteen patients (37.5%) had peripheral neuropathy that was severe enough in 5 patients (12.5%) to require ddI and d4T discontinuation.ConclusionVirologic efficacy combination therapy with d4T, ddI, and EFV was measured by the percentage of patients with plasma HIV RNA values below 500 copies/mL and 50 copies/mL; for both parameters, virologic efficacy decreased during the study period. This is explained by the high mortality rate (20%) and treatment modifications due to adverse events (13%). These data strengthen the recently revised World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines advocating initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) before profound CD4 lymphocyte depletion occurs and avoiding HAART regimens containing d4T and ddI because of treatment-limiting side effects.

Discordant Conclusions from HIV Clinical Trials — An Evaluation of Efficacy Endpoints

The three main components of long-term efficacy for a combination of antiretrovirals are: (i) the strength of the antiviral effect, (ii) toxicity profile and (iii) patient acceptability of the regimen. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where discontinuations and switches are considered failures [ITT, switch equals failure (ITT/S = F)], is a regulatory standard for analysing the efficacy of antiretrovirals. A review of all clinical trials published in FDA product labels was conducted, including all clinical trials of boosted protease inhibitor- or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients, and all clinical trials of antiretrovirals in treatment-experienced patients. Clinical trials where the results are presented in the standard ITT/S = F method were included. For randomized clinical trials in treatment-naive patients, the majority of treatment discontinuations have been either for toxicity (32%) or patient refusal of treatment (41%), with only 27% of failure endpoints for virological reasons among recent clinical trials in naive patients. Therefore, there is the potential for the results from ITT/S = F analysis to be driven by non-virological endpoints - a new treatment can be classified as 'more efficacious' than control owing to fewer discontinuations due to adverse events or patient preference. In order to understand the intrinsic potency of the antiretroviral regimen under study, ITT analysis needs to be supplemented by standardized as-treated analyses, excluding withdrawals for toxicity or other reasons. To evaluate the efficacy of a treatment strategy or sequential treatment regimens, the 'ITT, switch included' (ITT/SI) method: where changes from the initial randomized treatment are not classified as treatment failure - can be used. However, interpretation of clinical trials using ITT/SI analysis is difficult and depends on the frequency of treatment switching in the different arms of a trial. Conclusions on efficacy from clinical trials can depend on the primary analysis used; most commonly, treatments could be significantly different by ITT/S=F analysis, but then interpreted as equivalent using the ITT/SI or as-treated methods.