Effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler on exacerbations versus formoterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The 6-month, randomized RISE (Revealing the Impact of Symbicort in reducing Exacerbations in COPD) study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of exacerbations is a primary goal for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) on reducing COPD exacerbations. METHODS: 1219 patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-very-severe COPD (per lung function) and a history of ≥1 COPD exacerbation received budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 µg twice daily (BID) during a 4-week run-in. Patients were then randomized 1:1 to receive budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 µg BID (n = 606) or formoterol DPI 9 µg BID (n = 613) for 26 weeks. Exacerbations were identified using predefined criteria for symptom worsening and treatment with systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics and/or hospitalization. The primary endpoint was annual rate of exacerbations. RESULTS: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI resulted in a 24% reduction in annual rate of exacerbations (0.85 vs 1.12; rate ratio: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.62, 0.92]; P = 0.006), and a significant risk reduction for time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.96]; P = 0.016) versus formoterol DPI. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs; ≥3%) in budesonide/formoterol and formoterol groups were COPD (4.5% vs 8.6%) and nasopharyngitis (5.0% vs 5.2%). Pneumonia AEs were reported in 0.5% and 1.0% of budesonide/formoterol-treated and formoterol-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI is an effective treatment option for reducing exacerbation rates in COPD patients with moderate-to-very-severe airflow limitation and history of exacerbations. No increase in pneumonia was observed with budesonide/formoterol; safety data were consistent with its established profile.

The SYGMA programme of phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol given 'as needed' in mild asthma: study protocols for two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In many patients with mild asthma, the low frequency of symptoms and the episodic nature of exacerbations make adherence to regular maintenance treatment difficult. This often leads to over-reliance on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever medication and under-treatment of the underlying inflammation, with poor control of asthma symptoms and increased risk of exacerbations. The use of budesonide/formoterol 'as needed' in response to symptoms may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with mild asthma. METHODS/DESIGN: The SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) programme consists of two 52-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma for at least 6 months, who would qualify for treatment with regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). SYGMA1 aims to recruit 3750 patients who will be randomised to placebo twice daily (bid) plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, placebo bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg, or budesonide 200 µg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over as-needed terbutaline for asthma control, as measured by well-controlled asthma weeks; a secondary objective is to establish the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline using the same outcome measure. SYGMA2 aims to recruit 4114 patients who will be randomised to placebo bid plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, or budesonide 200 µg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over budesonide bid plus as-needed terbutaline as measured by the annualised severe exacerbation rate. In both studies, use of all blinded study inhalers will be recorded electronically using Turbuhaler® Usage Monitors. DISCUSSION: Given the known risks of mild asthma, and known poor adherence with regular inhaled corticosteroids, the results of the SYGMA programme will help to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide/formoterol therapy in mild asthma. Patient recruitment is complete, and completion of the phase 3 studies is planned in 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02149199 SYGMA1 and NCT02224157 SYGMA2. Registered on 16 May 2014 and 19 August 2014, respectively.

Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of docetaxel in combination with zibotentan in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE As part of the ENTHUSE (Endothelin A Use) program, the efficacy and safety of zibotentan (ZD4054), an oral specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, has been investigated in combination with docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, patients received intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of 21-day cycles plus oral zibotentan 10 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to pain and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, pain and PSA response, progression-free survival, health-related quality of life, and safety. Results A total of 1,052 patients received study treatment (docetaxel-zibotentan, n = 524; docetaxel-placebo, n = 528). At the time of data cutoff, there had been 277 and 280 deaths, respectively. There was no difference in OS for patients receiving docetaxel-zibotentan compared with those receiving docetaxel-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P = .963). No significant differences were observed on secondary end points, including time to pain progression (median 9.3 v 10.0 months, respectively) or pain response (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.16; P = .283). The median time to death was 20.0 and 19.2 months for the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events in zibotentan-treated patients were peripheral edema (52.7%), diarrhea (35.4%), alopecia (33.9%), and nausea (33.3%). CONCLUSION Docetaxel plus zibotentan 10 mg/d did not result in a significant improvement in OS compared with docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic CRPC.

Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study of zibotentan (ZD4054) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone.

BACKGROUND: Endothelin-1 and the endothelin A (ET(A) ) receptor have been implicated in prostate cancer progression in bone. This study aimed to determine whether the specific ET(A) receptor antagonist, zibotentan, prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases who were pain-free or mildly symptomatic for pain. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to zibotentan 10 mg/day or placebo, plus standard prostate cancer treatment. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included times to pain progression, chemotherapy use, new bone metastases, and safety. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 594 patients were randomized (zibotentan, n = 299; placebo, n = 295). Median OS was 24.5 months in zibotentan-treated patients versus 22.5 months for placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95.2% confidence interval, 0.69-1.10; P = .240). No statistically significant differences were observed for any secondary efficacy endpoints. Peripheral edema (44%) and headache (31%) were the most commonly reported adverse events in the zibotentan group. Cardiac failure events were higher in the zibotentan group than placebo (any grade, 5.7% and 1.7%; Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3, 3.0% and 1.0%, respectively); these were manageable and reversible. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, treatment with zibotentan 10 mg/day did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in OS in this patient population. Zibotentan had an acceptable safety profile.

A phase II, randomized, multicenter study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zibotentan (ZD4054) in combination with pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC following treatment with the specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, zibotentan in combination with pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed monotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, patients with advanced NSCLC with non-squamous histology who had failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive either once-daily zibotentan 10 mg in combination with 3-weekly pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or placebo plus 3-weekly pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2). OS was calculated as the interval from date of randomization to date of death from any cause. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by recording the incidence of adverse events (AE) according to Common Toxicity Criteria for AE (CTCAE). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were randomized and completed the study (zibotentan plus pemetrexed, n = 30; placebo plus pemetrexed, n = 36). At the data cutoff, a total of 44 deaths had occurred, 20 and 24 in the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. No significant difference in OS was observed between the zibotentan and placebo treatment groups (HR, 1.13; 80% CI 0.77, 1.67; P = 0.69). The majority of AE were of CTCAE grade 1 or 2, and the most commonly reported AE in both treatment groups was anemia (23 and 25% of patients in the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no survival signal in patients with NSCLC following treatment with zibotentan in combination with pemetrexed. No new issues related to safety for either zibotentan or pemetrexed were identified.

Analysis of duration of response in oncology trials.

The fraction of patients who respond to treatment and the duration of response in the subset of responding patients are commonly evaluated in oncology trials of cytotoxic compounds. While formal, comparative analysis of the fraction of patients responding to treatment is straightforward in a randomised trial, analyses that attempt to compare treatments in terms of the duration of response in responding patients are likely to be biased since the groups being compared are defined by the post-treatment outcome of response rather than by randomisation. Subsets of responding patients may not be comparable with respect to baseline prognostic factors and, consequently, formal comparative analysis is discouraged by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency. In an attempt to combine both the fraction of patients responding to treatment and the duration of response in responding patients, Temkin considered the probability of being in response function (PBRF) as a description of the treatment difference. Begg and Larson subsequently developed a parametric version of the PBRF under the exponential assumption. This paper briefly considers the PBRF as a means of estimating the expected duration of response across all randomised patients, thereby allowing a formal and unbiased comparison of treatments for duration of response. Building on earlier work, a more general and flexible approach to estimating the expected duration of response is offered to generalize beyond the exponential distribution.

Phase II, open-label, randomized study (SIGN) of single-agent gefitinib (IRESSA) or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIb or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer.

Our objective was to evaluate gefitinib (IRESSA), an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus docetaxel as second-line monotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). SIGN (Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC; code 1839IL/0503) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase II trial that investigated oral gefitinib (250 mg/day) or i.v. docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) in patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously received one chemotherapy regimen. The primary objective was assessment of symptom improvement (using the FACT-L Lung Cancer Subscale). Secondary objectives included quality of life (FACT-L total score), response rate (using RECIST), overall survival and safety. This trial recruited 141 patients (68 to gefitinib and 73 to docetaxel) who received treatment for a median duration of 3.0 (gefitinib) and 2.8 (docetaxel) months. Similar efficacy was observed with gefitinib and docetaxel, 36.8 and 26.0% symptom improvement rates, 33.8 and 26.0% quality-of-life improvement rates, 13.2 and 13.7% objective response rates, and 7.5 and 7.1 months median overall survival, respectively. Fewer drug-related adverse events were observed with gefitinib compared with docetaxel (all grades: 51.5 versus 78.9%; Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4: 8.8 versus 25.4%). There were no withdrawals or deaths due to drug-related adverse events with gefitinib, while three patients withdrew and three died due to adverse events in the docetaxel group that were possibly drug related. We conclude efficacy with gefitinib was similar to docetaxel, but with a more favorable tolerability profile, in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. These results support further investigation of gefitinib in this disease setting.

Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer).

BACKGROUND: This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. FINDINGS: 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.