Design of the PF-ILD trial: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial of nintedanib in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease.

600 patients aged ≥18 years will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to nintedanib or placebo. Patients with diagnosis of IPF will be excluded. The study population will be enriched with two-thirds having a usual interstitial pneumonia-like pattern on HRCT. The primary endpoint is the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity over 52 weeks. The main secondary endpoints are the absolute change from baseline in King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire total score, time to first acute interstitial lung disease exacerbation or death and time to all-cause mortality over 52 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Japanese GCP regulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02999178.

Effect of Nintedanib in Subgroups of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis by Diagnostic Criteria.

RATIONALE: In the absence of a surgical lung biopsy, patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in clinical practice could participate in the INPULSIS trials of nintedanib if they had honeycombing and/or traction bronchiectasis plus reticulation, without atypical features of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Thus, the patients in these trials represented patients with definite UIP and a large subgroup of patients with possible UIP. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential impact of diagnostic subgroups on the progression of IPF and the effect of nintedanib. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with honeycombing on HRCT and/or confirmation of UIP by biopsy versus patients without either, using pooled data from the INPULSIS trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty-three (68.1%) patients had honeycombing and/or biopsy, and 338 (31.9%) patients had no honeycombing or biopsy. In these subgroups, respectively, the adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC in patients treated with placebo was -225.7 and -221.0 ml/yr, and the nintedanib versus placebo difference in the adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC was 117.0 ml/yr (95% confidence interval, 76.3-157.8) and 98.9 ml/yr (95% confidence interval, 36.4-161.5). There was no significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction (P = 0.8139). Adverse events were similar between the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IPF diagnosed in clinical practice who had possible UIP with traction bronchiectasis on HRCT and had not undergone surgical lung biopsy had disease that progressed in a similar way, and responded similarly to nintedanib, to that of patients with honeycombing on HRCT and/or confirmation of UIP by biopsy.

Tiotropium Respimat in cystic fibrosis: Phase 3 and Pooled phase 2/3 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium Respimat improved lung function in a phase 2 trial in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). We investigated its efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial, including a pre-specified pooled analysis of the phase 2 and 3 trials. METHODS: 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium Respimat 5 µg once daily in patients with CF (N=463). RESULTS: Co-primary efficacy endpoints showed no statistical difference between tiotropium and placebo: percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0-4h (AUC0-4h) (95% CI): 1.64% (0.27,3.55; p=0.092); percent-predicted trough FEV1 (95% CI) 1.40% (0.50,3.30; p=0.15). Adverse events were similar between groups. Pooled phase 2/3 trial results showed a treatment difference in favor of tiotropium: percent-predicted FEV1 AUC0-4h (95% CI): 2.62% (1.34,3.90). CONCLUSION: Tiotropium was well tolerated in patients with CF; lung function improvements compared with placebo were not statistically significant in the phase 3 trial. CLINICAL TRIALS: These studies are registered with clinical trial identifier numbers NCT00737100 and NCT01179347 NCT00737100 NCT01179347. These studies are also registered with the EudraCT number: 2008-001156-43 and 2010-019802-17.

Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib (formerly known as BIBF 1120) is an intracellular inhibitor that targets multiple tyrosine kinases. A phase 2 trial suggested that treatment with 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily reduced lung-function decline and acute exacerbations in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: We conducted two replicate 52-week, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials (INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily as compared with placebo in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The primary end point was the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC). Key secondary end points were the time to the first acute exacerbation and the change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, both assessed over a 52-week period. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive nintedanib or placebo. The adjusted annual rate of change in FVC was -114.7 ml with nintedanib versus -239.9 ml with placebo (difference, 125.3 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.7 to 172.8; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-1 and -113.6 ml with nintedanib versus -207.3 ml with placebo (difference, 93.7 ml; 95% CI, 44.8 to 142.7; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-2. In INPULSIS-1, there was no significant difference between the nintedanib and placebo groups in the time to the first acute exacerbation (hazard ratio with nintedanib, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; P=0.67); in INPULSIS-2, there was a significant benefit with nintedanib versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.77; P=0.005). The most frequent adverse event in the nintedanib groups was diarrhea, with rates of 61.5% and 18.6% in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-1 and 63.2% and 18.3% in the two groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-2. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, nintedanib reduced the decline in FVC, which is consistent with a slowing of disease progression; nintedanib was frequently associated with diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of the study medication in less than 5% of patients. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477.).

Design of the INPULSIS™ trials: two phase 3 trials of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is in clinical development as a treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Data from the Phase II TOMORROW study suggested that nintedanib 150 mg twice daily had clinical benefits with an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: The INPULSIS™ trials are replicate Phase III, randomized, double-blind, studies comparing the efficacy and safety of nintedanib 150 mg twice daily with placebo in patients with IPF. Eligible patients were aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of IPF within 5 years before randomization who had undergone a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan within 1-year before screening, and who had a forced vital capacity (FVC) of ≥50% predicted and a diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide of 30-79% predicted. Participants were randomized 3:2 to receive nintedanib or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint is the annual rate of decline in FVC. The key secondary endpoints are change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (a measure of health-related quality of life) over 52 weeks and time to first acute exacerbation. RESULTS: Enrolment of 1066 patients in 24 countries was completed in September 2012. Results will be reported in the first half of 2014. CONCLUSION: The INPULSIS™ trials will determine the efficacy of nintedanib in patients with IPF, including its impact on disease progression as defined by decline in FVC, acute exacerbations and health-related quality of life. In addition, they will characterise the adverse event profile of nintedanib in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifiers: NCT01335464 and NCT01335477).

Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran and warfarin have been compared for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a previous trial. We undertook this study to extend those findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial of 2589 patients with acute VTE treated with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 5 to 11 days, we compared dabigatran 150 mg twice daily with warfarin. The primary outcome, recurrent symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE and related deaths during 6 months of treatment occurred in 30 of the 1279 dabigatran patients (2.3%) compared with 28 of the 1289 warfarin patients (2.2%; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.80; absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.3; P<0.001 for the prespecified noninferiority margin for both criteria). The safety end point, major bleeding, occurred in 15 patients receiving dabigatran (1.2%) and in 22 receiving warfarin (1.7%; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.36-1.32). Any bleeding occurred in 200 dabigatran (15.6%) and 285 warfarin (22.1%; hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.81) patients. Deaths, adverse events, and acute coronary syndromes were similar in both groups. Pooled analysis of this study RE-COVER II and the RE-COVER trial gave hazard ratios for recurrent VTE of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.76-1.57), for major bleeding of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.48-1.11), and for any bleeding of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.79). CONCLUSION: Dabigatran has similar effects on VTE recurrence and a lower risk of bleeding compared with warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00680186 and NCT00291330.

Phase 2 trial of afatinib, an ErbB family blocker, in solid tumors genetically screened for target activation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, was evaluated in patients who had 1 of 4 categories of solid tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (EGFR/HER2) gene amplification or EGFR-activating mutations. METHODS: Patients with previously treated but ErbB inhibitor-naive esophagogastric, biliary tract, urothelial tract, or gynecologic cancers (lung cancers were excluded) harboring EGFR/HER2 gene amplification or high polysomy were identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Tumors were also screened for EGFR mutations. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics, and safety. RESULTS: Of 385 prescreened patients, 38 had FISH-positive tumors (10 with EGFR amplification and 29 with HER2 amplification or high polysomy [1 tumor had EGFR/HER2 high polysomy]; none had EGFR-activating mutations), and 20 patients received treatment with afatinib 50 mg daily. The objective response rate was 5% (1 of 20 patients), and the best objective response included 1 complete response. Eight patients experienced stable disease. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea, rash, and decreased appetite. The trial closed early because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent afatinib activity was limited, yet encouraging, in selected tumors that were screened prospectively for target activation. The implementation of a biomarker-driven approach using a low-frequency biomarker for patient selection across multiple tumor types can be challenging.

Effective strategies for management of hypertension after vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibition therapy: results from a phase II randomized, factorial, double-blind study of Cediranib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE Hypertension is a commonly reported adverse effect after administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. Cediranib is a highly potent and selective VEGF signaling inhibitor of all three VEGFRs. This study prospectively investigated hypertension management to help minimize dose interruptions/reductions to maximize cediranib dose intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 126) with advanced solid tumors were randomly assigned to one of four groups: cediranib 30 or 45 mg/d with or without antihypertensive prophylaxis. All patients developing hypertension on cediranib treatment were treated with a standardized, predefined hypertension management protocol. Results Cediranib was generally well tolerated, and all groups achieved high-dose intensities in the first 12 weeks (> 74% in all groups). Antihypertensive prophylaxis did not result in fewer dose reductions or interruptions. Increases in blood pressure, including moderate and severe readings of hypertension, were seen early in treatment in all groups and successfully managed. Severe hypertension occurred in one patient receiving prophylaxis versus 18 in the nonprophylaxis groups. Overall, there were nine partial responses, and 38 patients experienced stable disease >/= 8 weeks. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first prospective investigation of hypertension management during administration of a VEGF signaling inhibitor. All four regimens were well tolerated with high-dose intensities and no strategy was clearly superior. The current cediranib hypertension management protocol appears to be effective in managing hypertension compared with previous cediranib studies where no plan was in place, and early recognition and treatment of hypertension is likely to reduce the number of severe hypertension events. This protocol is included in all ongoing cediranib clinical studies.

Long-term efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia.

Patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesteral levels are at high risk of cardiovascular events but are often undertreated and fail to achieve lipid goals. This open-label, noncomparative, multicenter study assessed efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg for < or =96 weeks in 1,380 patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, including heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Patients > or =18 years old with fasting LDL cholesterol > or =190 and < or =260 mg/dl and triglycerides <400 mg/dl entered a 6-week dietary lead-in, before receiving rosuvastatin 40 mg for 48 weeks. An optional additional 48-week treatment period followed. The initial period had 2 primary end points: percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III LDL cholesterol goals at 12 weeks, and long-term safety, assessed during 48 weeks by incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and abnormal laboratory values. Safety was the primary end point in the extension period. At 12 weeks, 83% of patients achieved NCEP ATP III LDL cholesterol goals, which were maintained during 48 and 96 weeks (81% and 84%, respectively). At 48 weeks, rosuvastatin 40 mg reduced LDL cholesterol from baseline by 52% and increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol by 11% (both p <0.0001). At 96 weeks, LDL cholesterol was reduced by 54% and HDL cholesterol increased by 13%. Rosuvastatin 40 mg was well tolerated during 96 weeks. The overall pattern and incidence of AEs and abnormal laboratory values were consistent with the published safety profile of rosuvastatin and higher doses of other statins. In conclusion, long-term treatment with rosuvastatin 40 mg is safe and effective in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia.

Comparison of the effects of high doses of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on the subpopulations of high-density lipoproteins.

Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are both highly effective in decreasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels. However, rosuvastatin was shown to be more effective in increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. The purpose of the study is to compare the effects of daily doses of rosuvastatin 40 mg with atorvastatin 80 mg during a 6-week period on HDL subpopulations in 306 hyperlipidemic men and women. We previously showed that increased levels of large alpha-1 and alpha-2 HDLs decrease the risk of coronary heart disease and protect against progression of coronary atherosclerosis (superior to HDL cholesterol). In this study, both statins caused significant increases in large alpha-1 (p <0.001) and alpha-2 (p <0.001 for rosuvastatin, p <0.05 for atorvastatin) and significant (p <0.001) decreases in small pre-beta-1 HDL levels; however, increases in the 2 large HDL particles were significantly higher for rosuvastatin than atorvastatin (alpha-1, 24% vs 12%; alpha-2, 13% vs 4%; p <0.001). Statin-induced increases in alpha-1 and alpha-2 correlated with increases in HDL cholesterol, whereas decreases in pre-beta-1 were associated with decreases in triglycerides. In subjects with low HDL cholesterol (<40 mg/dl for men, <50 mg/dl for women, n = 99), increases in alpha-1 were 32% versus 11%, and in alpha-2, 21% versus 5% for rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, respectively. In conclusion, our data show that both statins, given at their maximal doses, favorably alter the HDL subpopulation profile, but also that rosuvastatin is significantly more effective in this regard than atorvastatin.

Comparison of short-term renal effects and efficacy of rosuvastatin 40 mg and simvastatin 80 mg, followed by assessment of long-term renal effects of rosuvastatin 40 mg, in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: An open-label, randomized, multinational, parallel-group trial compared the short-term (6-week) renal effects of rosuvastatin 40 mg and simvastatin 80 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Most patients (93%) then entered an optional open-label extension (OLE) to assess long-term (up to 72 weeks) renal effects of rosuvastatin. METHODS: After dietary lead-in, 626 patients were randomized to rosuvastatin or simvastatin for 6 weeks, followed by an optional, single-arm OLE to assess longer-term effects of rosuvastatin on renal function, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, a shift in urine dipstick protein from "none" or "trace" at baseline to "+" or greater in the first 4 weeks, was observed in 6.4% of patients receiving rosuvastatin and 1.0% of those receiving simvastatin. The incidence of shifts in urine dipstick protein at any time from none or trace to "++" or greater (proteinuria), was low (1.3%, rosuvastatin; 0.3%, simvastatin), transient and urine protein was predominantly of tubular or mixed origin. More patients achieved Third Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (NCEP ATP III) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with rosuvastatin vs simvastatin after 6 weeks (77.9% vs 60.4%). Results from the OLE (median rosuvastatin treatment = 47 weeks) were consistent with the randomized period. Mean serum creatinine levels remained stable, indicating no decline in renal function. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of patients treated with rosuvastatin 40 mg may experience a transient proteinuria, predominantly of tubular origin and not associated with declining renal function. Rosuvastatin modified lipid levels effectively, enabled more patients to attain LDL-C goals, and demonstrated a favorable benefit/risk profile.