scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of Cineole (Soledum®) in the treatment of patients with acute bronchitis: results of an open-label randomized clinical phase III study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Kardos ◽  
Olga Khaletskaya ◽  
Olga Kropova
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Option ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Acute Bronchitis ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cough Frequency ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Valuable Treatment

Abstract Background Cineole has documented anti-inflammatory, expectorant, and mucolytic properties and has shown to be a valuable treatment option in different airway diseases. Our study examined whether a therapy with Cineole as add on to an antiviral therapy can relieve symptoms of acute bronchitis, and accelerate recovery in everyday practice. Methods In an open-label, randomized, parallel-group phase III clinical trial, 132 patients diagnosed with “acute bronchitis” or “acute tracheobronchitis” were included and treated with 3 × 200 mg of Cineole on top of antiviral treatment, or antiviral treatment alone (Ingavirin® 90 mg), per day for 4–9 days. The primary outcome measure was the change in cough frequency assessed in a Cough Frequency Assessment Scale, secondary outcomes were the total Bronchitis Severity Scale (BSS), as well as individual symptoms of the BSS score. Adverse events were collected for safety analysis. The study sites were located in Russia. Results After 4 days of therapy, there was a significant difference between the groups in favour of the patients treated with Cineole which persisted until the end of the study. At that time, cough during the day, assessed by the Cough Frequency Assessment Scale, was absent in 14 patients in the Cineole group (21.5%), compared to 4 (6.2%) patients in the control arm (p = 0.0203), which was replicated using the BSS individual cough score. In addition, significant improvements in the individual symptoms of the BSS in patients taking Cineole were documented. The study drug showed good tolerability without differences to antiviral treatment and results were in line with previous experiences with this drug. Conclusions Assessment after 4 days of treatment with additional Cineole showed a significant reduction of cough frequency and other symptoms of acute bronchitis compared to antiviral treatment alone. In addition, patients recovered faster from the disease. Additional treatment with Cineole is a valuable treatment option in acute bronchitis. Trial registration Ministry of Health, Russia, No. 592. Registered 19 October 2015.

Bendamustine in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia -Consistent Superiority Over Chlorambucil in Elderly Patients and Across Clinically Defined Risk Groups.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2367-2367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Ulrich Knauf ◽  
Toshko Lissitchkov ◽  
Ali Aldaoud ◽  
Anna Liberati ◽  
Javier Loscertales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Binet Stage

Abstract Abstract 2367 Poster Board II-344 Introduction: Bendamustine is a purine analog/alkylator hybrid agent with a unique mechanism of action, which has shown good clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability in various hematological malignancies. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, and presents with a variety of clinical characteristics which influence the prognosis. We analyzed tolerability and efficacy of bendamustine (BEN) in comparison to chlorambucil (CLB) in clinical risk groups defined by age and specific indicators of disease activity. Patients and Methods: The efficacy and safety of BEN and CLB have been compared in a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial in patients with previously untreated advanced (Binet stage B/C) CLL. Patients were randomized to receive BEN (100 mg/m2 on days 1 + 2) or CLB (0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. The primary endpoints were overall remission rate (ORR), which was defined as complete or partial response, and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. The response to treatment was evaluated by a blinded Independent Response Assessment Committee. Results: A total of 319 patients were randomized (162 bendamustine, 157 chlorambucil), of whom all were included in the efficacy analysis, while 312 were evaluable for safety. Median age was 64 years (35 to 78). The median number of treatment cycles was 6 in both study arms, regardless of an age above or below 65 years. The median observation time was 35 months. ORR was significantly higher with BEN than with CLB (68% versus 31%, P<0.0001). The median PFS was 21.6 months with BEN and 8.3 months with CLB (P<0.0001). So far, there is no difference in OS (median not reached with BEN versus 65.4 months with CLB; p = 0.16). No significant difference in the remission rates became apparent when comparing patients below and above the age of 65 years (ORR 71.6 % versus 63.5 % with BEN, p>0.3; and 28.4 % versus 32.5 % with CLB, p>0.6). PFS was not influenced by age above 65 years, stage of disease (Binet stage B versus C), or elevated LDH. However, patients without B symptoms had a longer median PFS with BEN than those patients with B symptoms (30.4 months versus 17.7 months; p<0.0001), whereas median PFS was not affected by the presence of B symptoms in patients with CLB (8.9 months in both patient groups). Conclusion: This study has shown that bendamustine offers significantly greater efficacy than chlorambucil in the elderly and across clinically defined major risk groups, even in the presence of B symptoms. BEN should be considered as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced CLL. Disclosures: Knauf: mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; cephalon: Consultancy, Honoraria. Klein:mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Merkle:mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montillo:mundipharma Italy: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Obesity Does Not Alter the Pharmacokinetics of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Severe Sepsis

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Levy ◽  
David Small ◽  
Darell E Heiselman ◽  
Richard Riker ◽  
Jay Steingrub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Actual Body ◽  
Drotrecogin Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Actual Body Weight ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Drotrecogin Alfa Activated ◽  
Significant Difference

BACKGROUND: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) [DrotAA] is approved for the reduction of mortality in adults with severe sepsis (sepsis with acute organ dysfunction) and high risk of death. Patients whose actual body weight was >135 kg were excluded from the Phase III PROWESS trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare exposure to DrotAA in patients with severe sepsis weighing >135 kg with those weighing ⩽135 kg in an open-label, Phase IV trial, and quantify the elimination half-life (t1/2) of DrotAA in these patients. METHODS: PROWESS inclusion/exclusion criteria were used, except that patients >135 kg were enrolled. Blood samples were collected for steady-state plasma concentration (Css) analysis of activated protein C once each day and for t1/2 analysis after infusion. Weight-normalized clearance (Clp) and t1/2 estimates for DrotAA were calculated and compared between weight groups. RESULTS: Patient weight range was 59–227 kg. There were 32 patients ⩽135 kg and 20 patients >135 kg enrolled. Median Clp was 0.45 L/h/kg (interquartile range [IQR] 0.37–0.54) for patients ⩽135 kg and 0.42 L/h/kg (IQR 0.33–0.54) for patients >135 kg (p = 0.692). Median estimates of Css were 51.9 ng/mL (IQR 43.4–62.0) and 56.5 ng/mL (IQR 44.9–71.1; p = 0.570). In patients ⩽135 kg, DrotAA had a median t1/2 of 16.7 minutes (IQR 13.9–20.0) compared with 16.0 minutes (IQR 12.9–19.8) in patients >135 kg (p = 0.767), for a composite median t1/2 of 16.3 minutes (IQR 14.2–18.8). CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference in Css concentrations or t1/2 of DrotAA between patients weighing ⩽135 kg and >135 kg. DrotAA should be dosed by actual body weight.

Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Study Comparing Patupilone (EPO906) With Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Platinum-Refractory or -Resistant Patients With Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian, Primary Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (31) ◽  
pp. 3841-3847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
Elzbieta Kutarska ◽  
Meletios Dimopoulos ◽  
Duk-Soo Bae ◽  
Izabella Rzepka-Gorska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fallopian Tube ◽  
Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Platinum Refractory

Purpose This study compared the efficacy and safety of patupilone with those of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with platinum-refractory or -resistant epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with three or fewer prior regimens were eligible if they had received first-line taxane/platinum-based combination chemotherapy and were platinum refractory or resistant. Patients were randomly assigned to receive patupilone (10 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks) or PLD (50 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks). Results A total of 829 patients were randomly assigned (patupilone, n = 412; PLD, n = 417). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS), the primary end point, between the patupilone and PLD arms (P = .195; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.09), with median OS rates of 13.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months for both arms. The overall response rate (all partial responses) was higher in the patupilone arm than in the PLD arm (15.5% v 7.9%; odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.36 to 3.29), although disease control rates were similar (59.5% v 56.3%, respectively). Frequently observed adverse events (AEs) of any grade included diarrhea (85.3%) and peripheral neuropathy (39.3%) in the patupilone arm and mucositis/stomatitis (43%) and hand-foot syndrome (41.8%) in the PLD arm. Conclusion Patupilone did not demonstrate significant improvement in OS compared with the active control, PLD. No new or unexpected serious AEs were identified.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Docetaxel and Sodium Cantharidinate Combination vs. Either Agent Alone as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC With Wild-Type or Unknown EGFR Status: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled, Prospective, Multi-Center Phase III Trial (Cando-L1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Wu ◽  
Chao Deng ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Jie Weng ◽  
Youhua Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Second-line treatment options for advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel/sodium cantharidinate combination vs. either agent alone as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients with wild-type or unknown EGFR status. A randomized, open-label, phase III study was performed at 12 institutions. Patients with failure of first-line platinum regimens were randomized to receive either single-agent sodium cantharivsdinate (SCA) or single-agent docetaxel (DOX) or docetaxel/sodium cantharidinate combination (CON). The primary endpoints were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. A total of 148 patients were enrolled in our study between October 2016 and March 2020. After a median follow-up time of 8.02 months, no significant difference was observed among the three groups in ORR (SCA vs. DOX vs. CON: 6.00% vs. 8.33% vs. 10.00%, respectively; p=0.814) and DCR (74.00% vs. 52.00% vs. 62.50%, respectively; p=0.080). In additional, the mOS was significantly higher in the CON group, compared with the single-agent groups (7.27 vs. 5.03 vs. 9.83 months, respectively; p=0.035), while no significant differences were observed in terms of PFS (2.7 vs. 2.9 vs. 3.1 months, respectively; p=0.740). There was no significant difference in the baseline QoL scores between the three groups (p&gt;0.05); after treatment, life quality in SCA and CON group was significantly better than that in the DOX group (p&lt;0.05). Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the SCA group was significantly lower (46.00 vs. 79.17 vs. 25.00%, respectively; p=0.038) and the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was also significantly lower in the SCA group compared with the DOX and CON groups (10.00 vs. 82.00 vs. 30.00%, respectively; p=0.042). Single-agent SCA and single-agent DOX has similar therapeutic efficacy in the second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic NSCLC with wild-type or unknown EGFR status, but single-agent SCA has fewer AEs and better QoL. Also, SCA plus DOX can significantly improve OS and exerted a significant synergistic effect, with good safety and tolerance profile.

scholarly journals Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (14) ◽  
pp. 1200-1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Bayman ◽  
Wiebke Appel ◽  
Linda Ashcroft ◽  
David R. Baldwin ◽  
Andrew Bates ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chest Wall ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Radiation Dermatitis ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prophylactic Irradiation ◽  
Prophylactic Radiotherapy ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

A new option in pain prevention with bliss, a therapeutic virtual reality solution in bone marrow biopsy context: Results of a French open-label multicenter randomized phase II/III study (REVEH Trial).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6573-6573
Author(s):  
Katell LE DU ◽  
Anne-Lise Septans ◽  
Frédéric Maloisel ◽  
Hélène Vanquaethem ◽  
Anna Schmitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Bone Marrow Biopsy ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Relaxation Procedure ◽  
Very High

6573 Background: The prevention of care-induced pain is a central concern for all healthcare teams in hematology units. Use of MEOPA (Oxygen + Nitrous Oxide) is today a standard of care for relaxation procedure. Distraction through immersion in virtual reality (VR) has already documented its analgesic effects in several phase II trials but comparison with standard treatments in a large randomized study is needed. Methods: We conducted an open-label multicenter randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03483194). We assessed the safety and efficacy of a new therapeutic virtual reality solution for pain distraction, Bliss, in prevention of pain and anxiety before performing a bone marrow biopsy. Bliss is a VR software with four imaginary interactive environments in three dimensions with binaural sound (head-mounted display). Efficacy was evaluated by pain intensity with visual analog scale (score from 0 to 10) just after the biopsy and anxiety by 2 questionnaires (fear of pain before the biopsy and revised STAI questionnaire before and after the biopsy). The primary end point was patient-assessed pain intensity after the bone marrow procedure. Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled with previously untreated malignant hemopathy between September 6, 2018 and May 18, 2020. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain prevention with MEOPA (n=63) or Bliss (n=63) before and during their bone marrow biopsy. All patients received a local anesthesia with lidocaïne before the biopsy. Median age of the study population was 65.5 years old (range 18 to 87) and 54,2% were men. The average pain intensity was 3.5 (standard deviation 2.6) for the MEOPA group and 3.0 (SD 2.4) for the VR group (p=0,26) without any significant difference according to age, gender or hemopathy. Concerning anxiety, 67.5% of patients were afraid before the biopsy and anxiety scores were moderate to very high in 26.3% of patients before the biopsy (STAI questionnaire) and 9.0% after the biopsy for all patients (17.3% of reduction in anxiety for the MEOPA group and 17.2% for the VR group, p=0.83). Immersion in VR was well tolerated in 100% of patients included in the VR group. Physicans were very satisfied by the relaxation procedure in 64.9% of cases (52.5% in the MEOPA group and 77.6% in the VR group, p=0.01) and recommended re-use of the technique in 54.2% in the MEOPA group and 79,1% in the VR group (p=0.02). Conclusion: The intensity of pain did not significantly differ in both arms. Bliss-based relaxation method was well tolerated and the satisfaction of patients and physicians was very high in VR group. This study validates the use of immersion in VR with Bliss as a new digital therapeutics and support the integration of the software in the panel of supportive care. Key words: virtual reality, bone marrow biopsy, pain. Clinical trial information: 03483194.

ESPAC-3(v2): A multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, controlled phase III trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/FA) versus gemcitabine (GEM) in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4505-LBA4505 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Neoptolemos ◽  
M. Büchler ◽  
D. D. Stocken ◽  
P. Ghaneh ◽  
D. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Bolus Injection ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Significant Difference

LBA4505 Background: Adjuvant 5-FU/FA (ESPAC-1 trial) and GEM (CONKO-001 trial) provide improved survival for patients with resected pancreatic cancer compared to no chemotherapy. The aim of the ESPAC-3 (v2) trial was to compare 5FU/FA vs GEM to identify if either adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a significantly better survival. Methods: Patients with an R0/R1 resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were randomized (stratified for resection margin status and country) <8 weeks of surgery to receive either 5FU/FA (FA, 20 mg/m2, iv bolus injection followed by 5-FU, 425 mg/m2, iv bolus injection given 1–5d every 28 days) or GEM (1,000mg/m2 iv infusion 1d, 8d and 15d every 4 weeks) for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was overall survival; the secondary measures were toxicity, progression free survival and quality of life. 1,030 patients were needed to detect a 10% difference in 2-year survival rates with 90% power. Results: 1,088 patients from 16 countries were randomized from July 2000 to Jan 2007 (5FU/FA = 551, GEM = 537). Median (range) age was 63 (31–85) years; 598 (55%) were men. Median tumor size was 30 (20–350) mm; 384 (35%) were R1 resections; 777 (72%) were node positive; and 263 (25%) were poorly differentiated tumors. Final analysis was carried out on an intention to treat basis with a minimum of 2 years follow-up after 753 (69%) patients had died. Median (IQR) follow-up of 335 alive patients was 34.2 (27.1–43.4) months, equal across treatment groups. Median survival from resection of patients treated with 5FU/FA was 23.0 (95% CI: 21.1, 25.0) months and for patients treated with GEM this was 23.6 (95%CI: 21.4, 26.4) months. Log-rank analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in survival estimates between the treatment groups (c2LR=0.7, p=0.39, HRGEM=0.94 (95%CI: 0.81, 1.08)). There was no significant difference in the effect of treatment across subgroups according to R status (test of heterogeneity c21=0.3, p=0.56). Conclusions: This is the largest adjuvant trial ever conducted for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and showed no significant difference in survival between adjuvant 5FU/FA and adjuvant GEM. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of bexarotene combined with psoralen/ultraviolet A light (PUVA) compared to PUVA treatment alone in stage IB-IIa mycosis fungoides (MF): Final results from EORTC cutaneous lymphoma task force (CLTF) phase III clinical trial 21011.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8076-8076
Author(s):  
Sean Whittaker ◽  
Pablo L. Ortiz-Romero ◽  
Reinhard Dummer ◽  
Annamari Ranki ◽  
Baktiar Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Task Force ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Stage Ib ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

8076 Background: Skin-directed treatment with methoxsalen (PUVA) is the current treatment standard in stage IB-IIA MF. A combination of PUVA and bexarotene might be of additional clinical benefit for MF stage I/II patients (pts). Methods: EORTC 21011 was a randomised, open label phase III study comparing combined bexarotene and PUVA versus PUVA alone in pts with stage IB and IIA MF. Study primary endpoint was response (complete clinical + partial response, CCR+PR) rate; secondary endpoints: cumulative dose of UVA and number of PUVA sessions necessary to achieve a CCR, duration of CCR, time to relapse, safety and percentage of drop-outs. Results: The study recruited stage IB/IIA MF pts and was prematurely closed due to low accrual after 93/145 required pts (65%) were randomized; 45 to PUVA, 48 to PUVA+bexarotene. Median number of PUVA weeks were 12 (1-17) in PUVA vs. 10.5 (1-16) in combination arm. Total UVA doses were 107J/cm2 (1.4-489.9) in PUVA vs. 101.7J/cm2 (0.2-529.9) in combination arm. Few grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in both arms (liver enzyme elevation, neutropenia, anemia, increased cholesterol, photosensitivity, pruritus, rash, hypertriglyceridemia). Best overall response (CCR/PR) rate was 71.1% (33/45) for PUVA alone and 77.1% (37/48) for combination arm (p-value=0.57). The median of duration of response was 9.6 for PUVA vs 5.8 months for combination arm (p value=0.33). CCR was seen in 25 pts, 10 in PUVA (CCR 24%) and 15 in combination therapy (CCR 33%) (pvalue=0.45). Similarily, a lower UVA dose was required to achieve a CCR in the combination arm (median of 55.8 J/cm2) compared to the PUVA arm (median of 117.58 J/cm2) (p value=0.5). Conclusions: No significant difference in response rate was observed in this study. There was a trend towards fewer PUVA sessions and lower UVA dose to achieve CCR in the PUVA/bexarotene combination arm (median of 27.5 vs. 22,p-value = 0.11) but this did not achieve statistical significance due to insufficient power. The safety profile was acceptable, as there were only few grade 3-4 toxicities observed in both arms.

Satralizumab for the Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802097666
Author(s):  
Yanli Gao ◽  
Baoqi Zhang ◽  
Junyi Yang
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Option ◽  
Neuromyelitis Optica ◽  
Interleukin 6 ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders ◽  
Valuable Treatment ◽  
Spectrum Disorders

Objective To review the pharmacological characteristics, clinical evidence, and place in therapy of satralizumab for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSDs). Data Sources A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed (January 2000 to October 15, 2020). Key search terms included satralizumab and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Other sources were derived from product labeling and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection and Data Extraction All English-language articles identified from the data sources were reviewed and evaluated. Phase I, II, and III clinical trials were included. Data Synthesis NMOSD is an autoimmune disease characterized by inflammatory lesions in the optic nerves and spinal cord. Interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of the disorder. Satralizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor. Phase III trials showed that protocol-defined relapse was 30% for satralizumab and 50% for placebo ( P = 0.018) when patients with NMOSD were treated with satralizumab monotherapy; protocol-defined relapse was 20% for satralizumab and 43% for placebo ( P = 0.02) when satralizumab was added to immunosuppressant treatment. Satralizumab is generally well tolerated, with common adverse effects including injection-related reaction. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice Satralizumab has the potential to become a valuable treatment option for patients with NMOSD. Conclusion Satralizumab appears to be safe and effective as monotherapy or in combination with an immunosuppressant for patients with NMOSD and has the potential to become a valuable treatment option for these patients.

Lapatinib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Paclitaxel Alone in the Second-Line Treatment ofHER2-Amplified Advanced Gastric Cancer in Asian Populations: TyTAN—A Randomized, Phase III Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (19) ◽  
pp. 2039-2049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taroh Satoh ◽  
Rui-Hua Xu ◽  
Hyun Cheol Chung ◽  
Guo-Ping Sun ◽  
Toshihiko Doi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Phase Iii Study

PurposeIn Asian countries, paclitaxel once per week is used as second-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer, including human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –positive tumors. The role of anti-HER2 agents, including lapatinib, in this setting and population is unclear.Patients and MethodsTyTAN was a two-part, parallel-group, phase III study in Asian patients. An open-label, dose-optimization phase (n = 12) was followed by a randomized phase (n = 261), in which patients who were HER2 positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) received lapatinib 1,500 mg once per day plus once-per-week paclitaxel 80 mg/m2or paclitaxel alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR), time to response, response duration, and safety. Analyses were based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gastrectomy status, prior trastuzumab therapy, and regional subpopulations.ResultsMedian OS was 11.0 months with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus 8.9 months with paclitaxel alone (P = .1044), with no significant difference in median PFS (5.4 v 4.4 months) or TTP (5.5 v 4.4 months). ORR was higher with lapatinib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone (odds ratio, 3.85; P < .001). Better efficacy with lapatinib plus paclitaxel was demonstrated in IHC3+ compared with IHC0/1+ and 2+ patients and in Chinese compared with Japanese patients. A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (lapatinib plus paclitaxel, 100% v paclitaxel alone, 98%).ConclusionLapatinib plus paclitaxel demonstrated activity in the second-line treatment of patients with HER2 FISH-positive IHC3+ advanced gastric cancer but did not significantly improve OS in the intent-to-treat population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document