Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilar FKB238 Versus Originator Bevacizumab: Results from AVANA, a Phase III Trial in Patients with Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (non-sq-NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is an antiangiogenic recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor growth. FKB238, a bevacizumab biosimilar, has analytical pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to those of bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: This phase III trial (NCT02810457) compared the efficacy and safety of FKB238 with that of bevacizumab in patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (non-sq-NSCLC). METHODS: This global, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, comparative clinical trial enrolled and randomized patients with advanced/recurrent non-sq-NSCLC to receive intravenous infusions of either FKB238 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. All patients received intravenous infusions of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0) immediately prior to investigational products for 4-6 cycles. FKB238 and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until objective progressive disease by RECIST version 1.1 or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), including complete and partial response and based on blinded independent central review assessment. Other efficacy determinations included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Adverse events and severity were reported. RESULTS: The ORR for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 731) was 51.6% in the FKB238 arm (N = 364) and 53.7% in the bevacizumab arm (N = 367). The FKB238:bevacizumab ORR ratio (ITT population) was 0.96 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.08), and the difference in ORR (per-protocol set) between FKB238 and bevacizumab was - 0.02 (95% CI - 0.09 to 0.06). Both CIs fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. Estimated median PFS was 7.72 and 7.62 months in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.82-1.16). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 94.2% and 95.1% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported for 53.6% and 55.5% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Serious TEAEs were reported for 25.1% and 26.0% of patients treated with FKB238 and bevacizumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy equivalence was demonstrated between the two drugs, and safety profiles were similar. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy and safety between FKB238 or bevacizumab in patients with non-sq-NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02810457.

Phase I study of cabazitaxel plus cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors: study to evaluate the impact of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors (aprepitant, ketoconazole) or inducers (rifampin) on the pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel.

PURPOSE: Cabazitaxel is primarily metabolized by CYP3A. This study evaluated the impact of moderate/strong CYP3A inhibitors [aprepitant (Study Part 2); ketoconazole (Study Part 3)] or strong CYP3A inducers [rifampin (Study Part 4)] on the pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel. METHODS: Adult patients received IV cabazitaxel/cisplatin 15/75 mg/m(2) on Day 1 of 3-week cycles (5/75 mg/m(2) in Cycles 1 and 2 of Part 3 to allow a safety margin to the cabazitaxel MTD). Patients received repeated oral doses of aprepitant, ketoconazole or rifampin before/during Cycle 2. Cabazitaxel clearance was the primary endpoint; clearance and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) were normalized to body surface area and dose, respectively. RESULTS: The PK population included 13 (Part 2), 23 (Part 3) and 21 patients (Part 4). Repeated aprepitant administration did not affect cabazitaxel clearance [geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.98; 90 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.19]. Repeated ketoconazole administration resulted in 20 % decrease in cabazitaxel clearance (GMR 0.80; 90 % CI 0.55-1.15), associated with 25 % increase in AUC (GMR 1.25; 90 % CI 0.86-1.81). Repeated rifampin administration resulted in 21 % increase in cabazitaxel clearance (GMR 1.21; 90 % CI 0.95-1.53), associated with 17 % decrease in AUC (GMR 0.83; 90 % CI 0.65-1.05). The GMR of AUC0-24 with rifampin administration was 1.09 (90 % CI 0.9-1.33), suggesting that rifampin had a low impact during the initial phases of cabazitaxel elimination. Safety findings were consistent with previous results. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics are modified by drugs strongly affecting CYP3A. Co-administration of cabazitaxel with strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers should be avoided.

Phase I dose-escalation study of cabazitaxel administered in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane with in vivo activity against taxane-sensitive and -resistant tumor cell lines and tumor xenografts. Cabazitaxel/cisplatin have therapeutic synergism in tumor-bearing mice, providing a rationale for assessing this combination in patients with solid tumors. METHODS: The primary objectives of this study were to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a cabazitaxel/cisplatin combined regimen (Part 1) and to assess antitumor activity at the MTD (Part 2). Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) were also examined. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled (10 in Part 1; 15 in Part 2). In Part 1, two dose levels were evaluated; the MTD for cabazitaxel/cisplatin (given Q3W) was 15/75 mg/m(2). DLTs occurring during Cycle 1 at the maximum administered dose (20/75 mg/m(2); acute renal failure and febrile neutropenia) and the MTD (febrile neutropenia and hypersensitivity despite pre-medication) were as expected for taxane/platinum combinations. For the 18 patients treated at the MTD, the most frequent possibly related non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (Grade ≥ 3) were nausea (16.7%), fatigue, acute renal failure and decreased appetite (each 11.1%). Neutropenia was the most frequent treatment-emergent Grade ≥ 3 hematologic laboratory abnormality at the MTD (77.8%). The best overall response at the MTD was stable disease, observed in 66.7% of patients. PK results of the combination did not appear to differ from single-agent administration for each agent. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with cabazitaxel/cisplatin had a manageable safety profile; no PK interactions were evident. The recommended Phase II dose for this combination is cabazitaxel/cisplatin 15/75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks. Antitumor activity findings suggest that further evaluation of this combination in disease-specific trials is warranted.

Randomized open-label phase II study of decitabine in patients with low- or intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized phase II trial assessed efficacy and tolerability of two low-dose regimens of subcutaneous (SC) decitabine in patients with low- or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received decitabine 20 mg/m(2) SC per day for 3 consecutive days on days 1, 2, and 3 every 28 days (schedule A) or 20 mg/m(2) SC per day once every 7 days on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days (schedule B) for up to 1 year. Primary efficacy end point was overall improvement rate (OIR: complete remission [CR], partial remission [PR], marrow CR [mCR], or hematologic improvement [HI]). Secondary end points were HI, transfusion independence, cytogenetic response, overall survival (OS), and time to acute myeloid leukemia or death. RESULTS: Efficacy and safety populations were identical: schedule A, n = 43; schedule B, n = 22. Median time from MDS diagnosis to treatment was 3.6 months; 89% had de novo MDS. The trial was terminated early on achievement of protocol-defined OIR superiority of schedule A over schedule B; OIR was 23% for schedule A (seven CRs, three HIs) and 23% for schedule B (one mCR, one PR, three HIs). No differences were observed in secondary end points. Median OS was not reached; approximately 70% of patients were alive at 500 days. Patients in schedule A (67%) and schedule B (59%) were RBC/platelet independent on study. The most frequent drug-related adverse events overall were neutropenia (28% v 36%), anemia (23% v 18%), and thrombocytopenia (16% v 32%). CONCLUSION: In this phase II study, low-dose decitabine showed promising results in patients with low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS.

Effectiveness and safety of donepezil in Hispanic patients with Alzheimer's disease: a 12-week open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Hispanics represent 10% of the U.S. population and are the fastest growing group. Studies show a higher prevalence and incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Hispanics than in the non-Hispanic white population, with an earlier age of onset. Among the currently estimated 200,000 Hispanics with AD, a significant number remain undiagnosed and untreated, and Hispanic participation in AD clinical trials has been historically low. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of donepezil hydrochloride (donepezil) in Hispanics with mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, 12-week study conducted in the United States, subjects were Hispanic men or women aged > or =50 years with a diagnosis of mild-to-moderate AD (DSMV-IV and NINCDS/ADRDA criteria), with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of 10-26 (inclusive) at screening. Subjects were treated with donepezil 5 mg/day for 6 weeks followed by 10 mg/day for 6 weeks. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline, week 6 and week 12. Cognitive improvement was measured using the MMSE, Fuld Object Memory Evaluation (FOME) and Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT). Behavioral symptoms and associated caregiver distress were assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). RESULTS: One-hundred-six patients with mild-to-moderate AD (mean age 68.6 years) were enrolled (intent to treat, n=97); most chose to have assessments conducted in Spanish. With 12 weeks of treatment, subjects showed statistically significant improvement from baseline on MMSE (P<0.0001), FOME retrieval (P=0.0042), FOME repeated retrieval (P=0.0020) and SDMT correct scores (P<0.0001). The NPI subdomain "apathy/indifference" showed statistically significant improvement (P=0.0010).The NPI Caregiver Distress scale (NPI-D) total score was statistically significantly improved (P=0.0500), suggesting a positive impact on relieving caregivers' burden associated with patient behavior. Most patients tolerated the treatment well, with only 2 discontinuing because of adverse events. The most common (>5%) adverse events were insomnia (9.5%), dizziness (7.6%), diarrhea (5.7%) and nausea (5.7%). CONCLUSION: The cognitive improvement and safety results from this study were consistent with those reported for donepezil in the general population. Increased awareness of AD in the Hispanic population will help more Hispanics with AD to benefit from early diagnosis and effective treatment.

Effect of ACAT inhibition on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The enzyme acyl-coenzyme A:cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT) esterifies cholesterol in a variety of tissues. In some animal models, ACAT inhibitors have antiatherosclerotic effects. METHODS: We performed intravascular ultrasonography in 408 patients with angiographically documented coronary disease. All patients received usual care for secondary prevention, including statins, if indicated. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the ACAT inhibitor pactimibe (100 mg per day) or matching placebo. Ultrasonography was repeated after 18 months to measure the progression of atherosclerosis. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable analyzing the progression of atherosclerosis--the change in percent atheroma volume--was similar in the pactimibe and placebo groups (0.69 percent and 0.59 percent, respectively; P=0.77). However, both secondary efficacy variables assessed by means of intravascular ultrasonography showed unfavorable effects of pactimibe treatment. As compared with baseline values, the normalized total atheroma volume showed significant regression in the placebo group (-5.6 mm3, P=0.001) but not in the pactimibe group (-1.3 mm3, P=0.39; P=0.03 for the comparison between groups). The atheroma volume in the most diseased 10-mm subsegment regressed by 3.2 mm3 in the placebo group, as compared with a decrease of 1.3 mm3 in the pactimibe group (P=0.01). The combined incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes was similar in the two groups (P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with coronary disease, treatment with an ACAT inhibitor did not improve the primary efficacy variable (percent atheroma volume) and adversely affected two major secondary efficacy measures assessed by intravascular ultrasonography. ACAT inhibition is not an effective strategy for limiting atherosclerosis and may promote atherogenesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268515.).