Rationale and Design of VOYAGER: Long-term Outcomes of Faricimab and Port Delivery System with Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema in Clinical Practice.

Purpose: To describe the rationale and design of the VOYAGER (NCT05476926) study, which aims to investigate the safety and effectiveness of faricimab and the Port Delivery System with ranibizumab (PDS) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME) in clinical practice. VOYAGER also aims to understand drivers of clinical practice treatment outcomes by gaining novel insight into the intersection of treatment regimens, decisions, anatomic outcomes, and vision. Design: Primary data collection, noninterventional, prospective, multinational, multicenter clinical practice study. Participants: At least 5000 patients initiating/continuing faricimab or PDS for nAMD/DME (500 sites, 31 countries). Methods: Management will be per usual care, with no mandated scheduled visits/imaging protocol requirements. Using robust methodologies, relevant clinical and ophthalmic data, including visual acuity (VA), and data on treatment clinical setting/regimens/philosophies, presence of anatomic features, and safety events will be collected. Routinely collected fundus images will be uploaded to the proprietary Imaging Platform for analysis. An innovative investigator interface will graphically display the patient treatment journey with the aim of optimizing treatment decisions. Main Outcome Measures: Primary end point: VA change from baseline at 12 months per study cohort (faricimab in nAMD and in DME, PDS in nAMD). Secondary end points: VA change over time and per treatment regimens (fixed, treat-and-extend, pro re nata, and other) and number. Exploratory end points: VA change in relation to presence/location of anatomic features that impact vision (fluid, central subfield thickness, fibrosis, atrophy, subretinal hyperreflective material, diabetic retinopathy severity, and disorganization of retinal inner layers) and per treatment regimen/philosophies. The impact of regional and practice differences on outcomes will be assessed as will safety. Results: Recruitment commenced in November 2022 and will continue until late 2027, allowing for up to 5 years follow-up. Exploratory interim analyses are planned annually. Conclusions: VOYAGER is an innovative study of retinal diseases that will assess the effectiveness and safety of faricimab and PDS in nAMD and DME and identify clinician- and disease-related factors driving treatment outcomes in clinical practices globally to help optimize vision outcomes. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy and Safety of Pirfenidone in Advanced Versus Non-Advanced Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Post-Hoc Analysis of Six Clinical Studies.

INTRODUCTION: In the European Union (EU), the indication for the antifibrotic pirfenidone prior to April 2023 did not include patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This analysis compared the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in advanced IPF versus non-advanced IPF. METHODS: Data were included from the following studies of pirfenidone: ASCEND (NCT01366209); CAPACITY (004 [NCT00287716] and 006 [NCT00287729]); RECAP (NCT00662038; advanced IPF defined as percent predicted forced vital capacity [%FVC] < 50% and/or percent predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity [%DLco] < 35% at baseline); PASSPORT (NCT02699879; advanced IPF defined as baseline %FVC < 50%); and SP-IPF (NCT02951429; patients with advanced IPF [defined as %DLco ≤ 40% at screening] at risk of group 3 pulmonary hypertension). RESULTS: In the pooled ASCEND/CAPACITY studies, the annual mean rate of FVC decline from baseline to Week 52 was significantly lower for pirfenidone versus placebo in advanced (p = 0.0035) and non-advanced IPF (p = 0.0001). Rate of all-cause mortality over 52 weeks was numerically lower for pirfenidone versus placebo in advanced and non-advanced IPF. In RECAP, the mean annual rate of FVC decline from baseline to Week 180 of pirfenidone treatment was similar in patients with advanced (- 141.5 mL) and non-advanced IPF (- 153.5 mL). In SP-IPF, the mean annual rate of FVC decline and rate of all-cause mortality from baseline to Week 52 in patients treated with placebo + pirfenidone were - 93.0 mL and 20.2%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified, and the safety profile of pirfenidone in patients with advanced IPF was generally consistent with that of non-advanced IPF. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the benefit of pirfenidone treatment in patients with advanced and non-advanced IPF. As such, the indication for pirfenidone in the EU has now been updated to include the treatment of adult patients with advanced IPF. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ASCEND (NCT01366209), CAPACITY 004 (NCT00287716), CAPACITY 006 (NCT00287729), RECAP (NCT00662038), PASSPORT (NCT02699879), and SP-IPF (NCT02951429).

Clinical and exploratory biomarker findings from the MODUL trial (Cohorts 1, 3 and 4) of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy following first-line induction treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report findings from Cohorts 1 (BRAFmut), 3 (human epidermal growth factor 2 [HER2]+) and 4 (HER2‒/high microsatellite instability, HER2‒/microsatellite stable [MSS]/BRAFwt or HER2‒/MSS/BRAFmut/RASmut). METHODS: Patients with unresectable, previously untreated mCRC without disease progression following standard induction treatment (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin [5-FU/LV] plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab) were randomly assigned to control (fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab) or cohort-specific experimental maintenance therapy (Cohort 1: vemurafenib plus cetuximab plus 5-FU/LV; Cohort 3: capecitabine plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab; Cohort 4: cobimetinib plus atezolizumab). The primary efficacy end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Cohorts 1, 3 and 4 did not reach target sample size because of early study closure. In Cohort 1 (n = 60), PFS did not differ between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence intervals 0.50-1.82; P = 0.872). However, Cohort 1 exploratory biomarker data showed preferential selection for mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mutations (mainly KRAS, NRAS, MAP2K1 or BRAF) in the experimental arm but not the control arm. In Cohort 3 (n = 5), PFS ranged from 3.6 to 14.7 months versus 4.0 to 5.4 months in the experimental and control arms, respectively. In Cohort 4 (n = 99), PFS was shorter in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence intervals 0.90-2.29; P = 0.128). CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib plus cetuximab plus 5-FU/LV warrants further investigation as first-line maintenance treatment for BRAFmut mCRC. MAPK-pathway emergent genomic alterations may offer novel therapeutic opportunities in BRAFmut mCRC. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab had an unfavourable benefit:risk ratio in HER2‒/MSS/BRAFwt mCRC. New strategies are required to increase the susceptibility of MSS mCRC to immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02291289.

A review of the challenges, learnings and future directions of home handheld spirometry in interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular physician visits and referral to specialist ILD clinics. Difficulties or delays in accessing care can limit opportunities to monitor disease trajectory and response to treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has added to these challenges. Therefore, home monitoring technologies, such as home handheld spirometry, have gained increased attention as they may help to improve access to care for patients with ILD. However, while several studies have shown that home handheld spirometry in ILD is acceptable for most patients, data from clinical trials are not sufficiently robust to support its use as a primary endpoint. This review discusses the challenges that were encountered with handheld spirometry across three recent ILD studies, which included home spirometry as a primary endpoint, and highlights where further optimisation and research into home handheld spirometry in ILD is required. Rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) as measured by daily home handheld spirometry versus site spirometry was of primary interest in three recently completed studies: STARLINER (NCT03261037), STARMAP and a Phase II study of pirfenidone in progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD (NCT03099187). Unanticipated practical and technical issues led to problems with estimating FVC decline. In all three studies, cross-sectional correlations for home handheld versus site spirometry were strong/moderate at baseline and later timepoints, but longitudinal correlations were weak. Other issues observed with the home handheld spirometry data included: high within-patient variability in home handheld FVC measurements; implausible longitudinal patterns in the home handheld spirometry data that were not reflected in site spirometry; and extreme estimated rates of FVC change. CONCLUSIONS: Home handheld spirometry in ILD requires further optimisation and research to ensure accurate and reliable FVC measurements before it can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials. Refresher training, automated alerts of problems and FVC changes, and patient support could help to overcome some practical issues. Despite the challenges, there is value in incorporating home handheld spirometry into clinical practice, and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential for home monitoring technologies to help improve access to care for patients with ILD.

Efficacy of Pirfenidone vs. Placebo in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease, by Surgical Lung Biopsy Status: Data From a post-hoc Analysis.

Approximately 12-13% of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are diagnosed with unclassifiable ILD (uILD), often despite thorough evaluation. A recent Phase 2 study (NCT03099187) described a significant effect of pirfenidone vs. placebo on forced vital capacity (FVC) measured by site spirometry in patients with progressive fibrosing uILD (hereafter referred to as the pirfenidone in uILD study). Here, we present the results from a post-hoc analysis of this study to assess patient baseline characteristics and the efficacy of pirfenidone vs. placebo analyzed by surgical lung biopsy (SLB) status. Mean FVC (mL) change over 24 weeks was included as a post-hoc efficacy outcome. Of 253 randomized patients, 88 (34.8%) had a SLB and 165 (65.2%) did not. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between SLB subgroups; however, patients who had a SLB were slightly younger and had a higher 6-min walk distance than those without a SLB. Mean FVC change over 24 weeks for pirfenidone vs. placebo was -90.9 vs. -146.3 mL, respectively, in patients who had a SLB, and 8.2 vs. -85.3 mL, respectively, in patients without a SLB. Overall, the results from the post-hoc analysis identified that pirfenidone may be an effective treatment in progressive fibrosing uILD over 24 weeks, irrespective of SLB status; however, caution should be taken when interpreting these data due to several limitations. There are differences in the treatment effect of pirfenidone between the subgroups that require further pathological and radiological investigation. In this manuscript, we also descriptively compared baseline characteristics from the overall pirfenidone in uILD study population with other uILD populations reported in the literature, with the aim of understanding if there are any similarities or differences within these cohorts. Most baseline characteristics for patients in the pirfenidone in uILD study were within the ranges reported in the literature; however, ranges were wide, highlighting the heterogeneity of uILD populations. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03099187.

Pirfenidone in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease: A Subgroup Analysis by Concomitant Mycophenolate Mofetil and/or Previous Corticosteroid Use.

INTRODUCTION: There are currently no approved treatments solely for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (uILD); however, a recent trial showed this population can benefit from pirfenidone. We report a subgroup analysis of this trial to assess the effects of immunomodulators (concomitant mycophenolate mofetil [MMF] and/or previous corticosteroids) with pirfenidone in patients with uILD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial of patients with progressive fibrosing uILD (NCT03099187). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. This analysis assessed forced vital capacity (FVC) change from baseline measured using site spirometry (key secondary endpoint) and safety over 24 weeks by concomitant MMF use at randomization (pre-specified analysis) and/or previous corticosteroid use (post hoc analysis). RESULTS: Overall, 253 patients were randomized, including 45 (17.8%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 23; placebo, n = 22) receiving concomitant MMF with/without previous corticosteroids (MMF subgroup); 79 (31.2%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 44; placebo, n = 35) receiving previous corticosteroids without MMF (corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup); and 129 (51.0%) patients (pirfenidone, n = 60; placebo, n = 69) not receiving concomitant MMF or previous corticosteroids (no-corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup). At 24 weeks, difference in mean (95% confidence interval) FVC change from baseline between pirfenidone and placebo was - 55.4 mL (- 206.7, 96.0; P = 0.4645) in the MMF subgroup; 128.4 mL (- 6.4, 263.3; P = 0.0617) in the corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup; and 115.5 mL (35.1, 195.9; P = 0.0052) in the no-corticosteroids/no-MMF subgroup. All subgroups generally exhibited a similar pattern of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although limited by design and small sample sizes, this analysis suggests pirfenidone may be less effective in patients with uILD receiving concomitant MMF, whereas a beneficial treatment effect was observed in patients not receiving concomitant MMF regardless of previous corticosteroid use. Pirfenidone was well tolerated regardless of MMF and/or corticosteroid use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03099187.

Disease Behaviour During the Peri-Diagnostic Period in Patients with Suspected Interstitial Lung Disease: The STARLINER Study.

INTRODUCTION: Disease behaviour may guide diagnosis and treatment decisions in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). STARLINER aimed to characterise disease behaviour in patients with suspected ILD during the peri-diagnostic period using real-time home-based assessments. METHODS: STARLINER (NCT03261037) was an international, multicentre study. Patients ≥ 50 years old with suspected ILD were followed throughout the peri-diagnostic period, consisting of a pre-diagnostic period (from enrolment to diagnosis) and a post-diagnostic period (from diagnosis to treatment initiation). Study length was variable (≤ 18 months). The primary endpoint was time-adjusted semi-annual forced vital capacity (FVC) change measured during the peri-diagnostic period using daily home spirometry in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Secondary outcomes included changes in FVC (home spirometry) in patients with non-IPF ILD, changes in FVC (site spirometry), changes in physical functional capacity measured by daily home accelerometry and site 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in IPF or non-IPF ILD. RESULTS: Of the 178 patients enrolled in the study, 68 patients were diagnosed with IPF, 62 patients were diagnosed with non-IPF ILD, 9 patients received a non-ILD diagnosis and 39 patients did not receive a diagnosis. Technical and analytical issues led to problems in applying the prespecified linear regression model to analyse the home FVC data. Time-adjusted median (quartile [Q]1, Q3) semi-annual FVC change during the peri-diagnostic period measured using home and site spirometry, respectively, was - 147.7 (- 723.8, 376.2) ml and - 149.0 (- 314.6, 163.9) ml for IPF and 19.1 (- 194.9, 519.0) ml and - 23.4 (- 117.9, 133.5) ml in non-IPF ILD. A greater decline in steps per day was observed for IPF versus non-IPF ILD, whereas an increase in 6MWD was observed for patients with IPF versus a decline in 6MWD for patients with non-IPF ILD. No clear patterns of disease behaviour were observed for IPF versus non-IPF ILD for PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite home spirometry being feasible for most patients and centres, technical and analytical challenges in the home-based assessments prevented firm conclusions regarding disease behaviour. This highlights that further optimisation of the technology and analysis methods is required before widespread implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03261037.

Efficacy and safety of sildenafil added to pirfenidone in patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and risk of pulmonary hypertension: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of sildenafil in patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at risk of poor outcomes from pulmonary hypertension, whether already present or likely to develop, is uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sildenafil added to pirfenidone versus placebo added to pirfenidone for 52 weeks in patients with advanced IPF and at risk of group 3 pulmonary hypertension. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study at 56 university clinics, research hospitals, and tertiary sites in Canada, Europe (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey), Israel, and Africa (Egypt and South Africa). Eligible patients (aged 40-80 years) had advanced IPF (carbon monoxide diffusing capacity ≤40% predicted at screening), and were at risk of group 3 pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥20 mm Hg with pulmonary artery wedge pressure of ≤15 mm Hg on previous right-heart catheterisation, or intermediate or high probability of group 3 pulmonary hypertension on echocardiography as defined by the 2015 European Society of Cardiology and European Respiratory Society guidelines). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral sildenafil tablets (20 mg three times daily) or placebo, both in addition to oral pirfenidone capsules (801 mg three times daily), using a validated interactive voice-based or web-based response system with permuted block randomisation, stratified by previous right-heart catheterisation (yes or no) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity ratio (<0·8 or ≥0·8). The composite primary endpoint was disease progression, defined as either a relevant decline in 6-min walk distance, respiratory-related admission to hospital, or all-cause mortality, after 52 weeks and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02951429, and is no longer recruiting. The 11-month safety follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and Aug 30, 2018, 247 patients were screened for eligibility, 177 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (n=88 sildenafil; n=89 placebo) and were assessed for the primary outcome. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with disease progression over 52 weeks between the sildenafil (64 [73%] of 88 patients) and placebo groups (62 [70%] of 89 patients; between-group difference 3·06% [95% CI -11·30 to 17·97]; p=0·65). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 54 (61%) patients in the sildenafil group and 55 (62%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to mortality occurred in 22 (25%) patients in the sildenafil group and 26 (29%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of sildenafil to pirfenidone did not provide a treatment benefit versus pirfenidone plus placebo up to 52 weeks in patients with advanced IPF and risk of pulmonary hypertension. No new safety signals were identified with either treatment. Although the absence of a beneficial treatment effect suggests that sildenafil is not an appropriate treatment in the overall population, further research is required to establish if specific subgroups of patients with IPF might benefit from sildenafil. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, no approved pharmacotherapies are available for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is characterised by progressive fibrosis of the lung. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 70 centres in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18-85 years) had progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD, a percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of 45% or higher and percent predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLco) of 30% or higher, more than 10% fibrosis on high-resolution CT, and a high-resolution CT from the previous 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2403 mg oral pirfenidone daily or placebo using a central validated interactive voice or web-based response system, stratified by concomitant mycophenolate mofetil use and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features. Investigators, site personnel, and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was mean predicted change in FVC from baseline over 24 weeks, measured by daily home spirometry. Secondary endpoints were change in FVC measured by site spirometry, proportion of patients who had a more than 5% or more than 10% absolute or relative decline in percent predicted FVC measured by clinic-based spirometry, change in percent predicted DLco, change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), change in University of California San Diego-Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) score, change in Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, change in cough visual analogue scale, and changes in total and subscores of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), all of which were compared with baseline. Additional secondary endpoints included proportion of patients who had non-elective hospitalisation (respiratory and all-cause) and acute exacerbations, and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03099187, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2017, and June 5, 2018, 253 patients were randomly assigned to receive 2403 mg pirfenidone (n=127) or placebo (n=126) and were included in the ITT analysis set. Analysis of the primary endpoint was affected by intraindividual variability in home spirometry values, which prevented application of the prespecified statistical model. Over 24 weeks, predicted median change in FVC measured by home spirometry was -87·7 mL (Q1-Q3 -338·1 to 148·6) in the pirfenidone group versus -157·1 mL (-370·9 to 70·1) in the placebo group. Over 24 weeks, predicted mean change in FVC measured by site spirometry was lower in patients given pirfenidone than placebo (treatment difference 95·3 mL [95% CI 35·9 to 154·6], p=0·002). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group were less likely to have a decline in FVC of more than 5% (odds ratio [OR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·25 to 0·69], p=0·001) or more than 10% (OR 0·44 [0·23 to 0·84], p=0·011). At week 24, mean change in DLco from baseline was -0·7% (SD 7·1) for the pirfenidone group and -2·5% (8·8) for the placebo group, and mean change in 6MWD from baseline was -2·0 m (68·1) for the pirfenidone group and -26·7 m (79·3) for the placebo group. Changes from baseline in UCSD-SOBQ, Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, cough visual analogue scale, and SGRQ scores were similar between the pirfenidone and placebo groups at week 24. Analysis of acute exacerbations, hospital admissions, and time to death from respiratory causes during the study yielded no meaningful results due to a small number of events. No differences in progression-free survival were identified between the pirfenidone and placebo groups, irrespective of the definition of progression-free survival used. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 120 (94%) of 127 patients in the pirfenidone group and 101 (81%) of 124 patients in the placebo group. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 18 (14%) patients in the pirfenidone group and 20 (16%) patients in the placebo group. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (60 [47%] in the pirfenidone group vs 32 [26%] in the placebo group), fatigue (16 [13%] vs 12 [10%]), and rash (13 [10%] vs nine [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the planned statistical model could not be applied to the primary endpoint data, analysis of key secondary endpoints suggests that patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD could benefit from pirfenidone treatment, which has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. These findings support further investigation of pirfenidone as an effective treatment for patients with progressive fibrotic unclassifiable ILD. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Effect of pirfenidone in patients with more advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Data from controlled clinical studies in patients with more advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) could inform clinical practice, but they are limited, since this sub-population is usually excluded from clinical trials. These exploratory post-hoc analyses of the open-label, long-term extension study RECAP (NCT00662038) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with more advanced IPF. Patients were categorised according to the extent of lung function impairment at baseline: more advanced (percent predicted FVC <50% and/or DLco <35%) and less advanced (percent predicted FVC ≥50% and DLco ≥35%).Overall, 596 patients with baseline FVC and/or DLco values available were included in the analyses; 187 patients had more advanced disease, and 409 patients had less advanced disease. Mean percent predicted FVC declined throughout 180 weeks of treatment in both more and less advanced disease subgroups. Both subgroups exhibited a similar pattern of adverse events; however, adverse events related to IPF progression were experienced by a higher proportion of patients with more advanced versus less advanced disease. Discontinuation rates due to any reason, adverse events related to IPF progression, or deaths were each higher in the more advanced versus the less advanced disease subgroup.These analyses found that longer-term pirfenidone treatment resulted in a similar rate of lung function decline and safety profile in patients with more advanced versus less advanced IPF, and the data suggest that pirfenidone is efficacious, well tolerated, and a feasible treatment option in patients with more advanced IPF.

Design of a Study Assessing Disease Behaviour During the Peri-Diagnostic Period in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease: The STARLINER Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study will aim to characterise disease behaviour during the peri-diagnostic period in patients with suspected interstitial lung disease (ILD), including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), using daily home spirometry and accelerometry. Additionally, this study will aim to increase collaboration between secondary and tertiary centres using a digital collaboration platform. METHODS: The STARLINER study (NCT03261037) will enrol approximately 180 symptomatic patients aged 50 years or more with radiological evidence of ILD/IPF from community and tertiary centres in Canada and Europe. Approximately two-thirds of sites will be community centres. Patients will be followed during pre-diagnosis (inclusion to diagnosis; up to a maximum of 12 months) and post-diagnosis (diagnosis to treatment initiation; up to a maximum of 6 months). The study will be facilitated by a digital ecosystem consisting of the devices used for home-based assessments and a digital collaboration platform enabling communication between community and tertiary centres, and between clinicians and patients. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint will be time-adjusted semi-annual change in forced vital capacity (FVC; in millilitres) during the peri-diagnostic period. Physical functional capacity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) will also be assessed. FVC and physical functional capacity will be measured using daily home spirometry and accelerometry, and at site visits using spirometry and the 6-min walk test. PROs will be assessed prior to, or during, site visits and will always be completed in the same order. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study may help to facilitate the early and accurate diagnosis of ILDs by increasing knowledge about disease progression, enabling collaboration between community and tertiary centres and improving communication between clinicians and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03261037. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. Plain language summary available for this article.

Dose modification and dose intensity during treatment with pirfenidone: analysis of pooled data from three multinational phase III trials.

INTRODUCTION: Temporary dose modifications, such as reductions or interruptions, may allow patients to better manage adverse events (AEs) associated with pirfenidone use and continue treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, the impact of such dosing adjustments on efficacy and safety is uncertain. METHODS: Patients randomised to receive treatment with pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo in the Clinical Studies Assessing Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Research of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes (CAPACITY (Study 004 (NCT00287716)) and Study 006 (NCT00287729))) and Assessment of Pirfenidone to Confirm Efficacy and Safety in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (ASCEND (Study 016 (NCT01366209)) trials were included in the analysis (n=1247). Descriptive statistics and a linear mixed-effects model (slope analysis) for annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) by dose intensity were performed. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were summarised and grouped by dose intensity or body size. RESULTS: Dose reductions and interruptions occurred in 76.9% (95% CI 73.4% to 80.1%) and 46.5% (95% CI 42.6% to 50.6%) of patients receiving pirfenidone vs 72.0% (95% CI 68.3% to 75.4%) and 31.1% (95% CI 27.5% to 34.9%) of patients receiving placebo, respectively. Dose interruptions tended to occur during the first 6 months of treatment, whereas dose reductions exhibited more variability. Less FVC decline from baseline was observed in patients receiving pirfenidone versus placebo at >90% dose intensity (p<0.001) or ≤90% dose intensity (p=0.0191), showing treatment benefit in both subgroups of dose intensity. No meaningful relationship between weight and TEAEs was observed. CONCLUSION: Dose interruptions, which may be required to manage TEAEs, mostly occurred during the first 6 months of treatment. Despite dose reductions and interruptions, most patients with IPF maintained relatively high dose intensity on pirfenidone, without compromising its treatment effect compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00287729, NCT00287716, NCT01366209.

Safety of nintedanib added to pirfenidone treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

We assessed safety and tolerability of treatment with pirfenidone (1602-2403 mg·day-1) and nintedanib (200-300 mg·day-1) in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).This 24-week, single-arm, open-label, phase IV study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02598193) enrolled patients with IPF with forced vital capacity % pred ≥50% and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide % pred ≥30%. Before initiating nintedanib, patients had received pirfenidone for ≥16 weeks and tolerated a stable dose of ≥1602 mg·day-1 for ≥28 days. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who completed 24 weeks of combination treatment on pirfenidone (1602-2403 mg·day-1) and nintedanib (200-300 mg·day-1). Investigators recorded treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), attributing them to pirfenidone, nintedanib, both or neither.89 patients were enrolled; 73 completed 24 weeks of treatment (69 meeting the primary end-point) and 16 discontinued treatment prematurely (13 due to TEAEs). 74 patients had 418 treatment-related TEAEs, of which diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting were the most common. Two patients had serious treatment-related TEAEs.Combined pirfenidone and nintedanib use for 24 weeks was tolerated by the majority of patients with IPF and associated with a similar pattern of TEAEs expected for either treatment alone. These results encourage further study of combination treatment with pirfenidone and nintedanib in patients with IPF.

Sildenafil added to pirfenidone in patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and risk of pulmonary hypertension: A Phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study - Rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is commonly observed in patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Despite the availability of therapies for both IPF and PH, none are approved for PH treatment in the context of significant pulmonary disease. This study will investigate the use of sildenafil added to pirfenidone in patients with advanced IPF and risk of PH, who represent a group with a high unmet medical need. METHODS: This Phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is actively enrolling patients and will study the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sildenafil or placebo in patients with advanced IPF and intermediate or high probability of Group 3 PH who are receiving a stable dose of pirfenidone. Patients with advanced IPF (diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≤40% predicted) and risk of Group 3 PH (defined as mean pulmonary arterial pressure ≥20 mm Hg with pulmonary arterial wedge pressure ≤15 mm Hg on a previous right-heart catheterisation [RHC], or intermediate/high probability of Group 3 PH as defined by the 2015 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines) are eligible. In the absence of a previous RHC, patients with an echocardiogram showing a peak tricuspid valve regurgitation velocity ≥2.9 m/s can enrol if all other criteria are met. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of patients with disease progression over a 52-week treatment period. Safety will be evaluated descriptively. DISCUSSION: Combination treatment with sildenafil and pirfenidone may warrant investigation of the treatment of patients with advanced IPF and pulmonary vascular involvement leading to PH.

Two intermittent vismodegib dosing regimens in patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas (MIKIE): a randomised, regimen-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vismodegib, a first-in-class Hedgehog-pathway inhibitor, is approved for use in adults with advanced basal-cell carcinoma. Patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas, including those with basal-cell nevus (Gorlin) syndrome, need extended treatment. We assessed the safety and activity of two long-term intermittent vismodegib dosing regimens in patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas. METHODS: In this randomised, regimen-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adult patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas, including those with basal-cell nevus syndrome, who had one or more histopathologically confirmed and at least six clinically evident basal-cell carcinomas. From a centralised randomisation schedule accessed via an interactive voice or web-based response system, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment group A (150 mg oral vismodegib per day for 12 weeks, then three rounds of 8 weeks of placebo daily followed by 12 weeks of 150 mg vismodegib daily) or treatment group B (150 mg oral vismodegib per day for 24 weeks, then three rounds of 8 weeks of placebo daily followed by 8 weeks of 150 mg vismodegib daily). Treatment assignment was stratified by diagnosis of basal-cell nevus syndrome, geographical region, and immunosuppression status. The primary endpoint was percentage reduction from baseline in the number of clinically evident basal-cell carcinomas at week 73. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815840, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and April 9, 2014, 229 patients were randomly assigned treatment, 116 in treatment group A and 113 in treatment group B. The mean number of basal-cell carcinoma lesions at week 73 was reduced from baseline by 62·7% (95% CI 53·0-72·3) in treatment group A and 54·0% (43·6-64·4) in treatment group B. 216 (95%) of 227 patients included in the safety analysis had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event deemed to be related to study treatment (107 [94%] of 114 in treatment group A and 109 [97%] of 113 in treatment group B). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were muscle spasms (four [4%] patients in treatment group A vs 12 [11%] in treatment group B), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (one [1%] vs four [4%]), and hypophosphataemia (zero vs three [3%]). Serious treatment-emergent events were noted in 22 (19%) patients in treatment group A and 19 (17%) patients in treatment group B. Four (2%) patients died from adverse events; one (pulmonary embolism in treatment group A) was possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Both intermittent dosing schedules of vismodegib seemed to show good activity in long-term regimens in patients with multiple basal-cell carcinomas. Further study is warranted. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized trial compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for 24 weeks) or a standard bolus FU/FA adjuvant regimen (Mayo Clinic for 24 weeks or Roswell Park for 32 weeks). The primary study end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 1,886 patients; 944 patients were randomly assigned to XELOX and 942 to FU/FA (Mayo Clinic, n = 664; Roswell Park, n = 278). After 57 months of follow-up for the primary analysis, 295 patients (31.3%) in the XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new primary colon cancer, or died compared with 353 patients (37.5%) in the FU/FA group (hazard ratio [HR] for DFS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93; P = .0045). The 3-year DFS rate was 70.9% with XELOX and 66.5% with FU/FA. The HR for overall survival (OS) for XELOX compared to FU/FA was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .1486). The 5-year OS for XELOX and FU/FA were 77.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Follow-up is ongoing. Preplanned multivariate and subgroup analyses supported the robustness of these findings. CONCLUSION: The addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine improves DFS in patients with stage III colon cancer. XELOX is an additional adjuvant treatment option for these patients.

Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines.

PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of safety data from randomized, single-agent fluoropyrimidine clinical trials (bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin [FU/LV] and capecitabine) to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in fluoropyrimidine tolerability. METHODS: Treatment-related safety data from three phase III clinical studies were analyzed by multivariate analysis: two comparing capecitabine with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) and one comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus FU/LV as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The United States (US) was compared with non-US countries (all three studies) and with the rest of the world and East Asia (adjuvant study). RESULTS: In the MCRC studies (n = 1,189), more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; relative risk [RR], 1.77), dose reductions (RR, 1.72), and discontinuations (RR, 1.83) were reported in US versus non-US patients. Likewise, in the adjuvant colon cancer study (n = 1,864), more grade 3/4 AEs (RR, 1.47) and discontinuations (RR, 2.09) were reported in US versus non-US patients. After further dividing non-US patients into those in East Asia and the rest of the world, differential RRs for related grade 3/4 AEs, grade 4 AEs, and serious AEs were again observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest and US patients the highest RR. CONCLUSION: Regional differences exist in the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. More treatment-related toxicity was reported in the US compared with the rest of the world for bolus FU/LV and capecitabine in first-line MCRC and adjuvant colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, a range of fluoropyrimidine tolerability was observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest, and US patients the highest, RR.

Early treatment with erythropoietin beta ameliorates anemia and reduces transfusion requirements in infants with birth weights below 1000 g.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether recombinant erythropoietin (rhEPO) reduces the need for transfusion in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants (birth weight 500-999 g) and to determine the optimal time for treatment. METHODS: In a blinded multicenter trial, 219 ELBW infants were randomized on day 3 to one of 3 groups: early rhEPO group (rhEPO from the first week for 9 weeks, n = 74), late rhEPO group (rhEPO from the fourth week for 6 weeks, n = 74), or control group (no rhEPO, n = 71). All infants received enteral iron (3-9 mg/kg/day) from the first week. The rhEPO beta dose was 750 IU/kg/week. Success was defined as no transfusion and hematocrit levels never below 30%. RESULTS: Success rate was 13% in the early rhEPO group, 11% in the late rhEPO group, and 4% in the control group (P =.026 for early rhEPO versus control group). Median transfusion volume was 0.4 versus 0.5 versus 0.7 mL/kg/day (P =.02) and median donor exposure was 1.0 versus 1.0 versus 2.0 (P =.05) in the early rhEPO group, the late rhEPO group, and the control group, respectively. Infection risk was not increased and weight gain was not delayed with rhEPO beta. CONCLUSION: Early rhEPO beta treatment effectively reduces the need for transfusion in ELBW infants.