Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).

Phase I study of everolimus plus weekly paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with trastuzumab.

PURPOSE: To determine the recommended dose of everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer pretreated with trastuzumab. METHODS: In this phase Ib, multicenter, dose-escalation study, patients were treated with everolimus 5 mg/d, 10 mg/d, or 30 mg/wk in combination with paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) and trastuzumab (2 mg/kg weekly). End points included end-of-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate (primary end point), safety, relative dose intensity of study drugs, overall response rate (ORR), and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Of 33 patients enrolled, 31 were pretreated with taxanes, and 32 were resistant to trastuzumab. Patients received a median of two lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (range, 0 to 17 lines). Three patients experienced cycle 1 DLTs: febrile neutropenia (5 mg/d), stomatitis (10 mg/d), and confusion (30 mg/wk). Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was the most common toxicity observed (n = 17 patients [52%]). On the basis of observed DLTs and overall safety, 10 mg/d was recommended for additional development. Twenty-seven patients had measurable disease and were evaluable for efficacy. Among these patients, ORR was 44%. Overall disease was controlled for 6 months or more in 74%. Median progression-free survival was 34 weeks (95% CI, 29.1 to 40.7 weeks). Among 11 patients who were resistant to both trastuzumab and taxane, a similar level of antitumor activity was observed (ORR, 55%). CONCLUSION: Everolimus combined with weekly paclitaxel and trastuzumab was generally well tolerated and had encouraging antitumor activity in patients with trastuzumab-pretreated and -resistant metastatic HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.

Peginterferon alfa-2b or alfa-2a with ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C infection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend the use of peginterferon alfa-2b or peginterferon alfa-2a in combination with ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, these regimens have not been adequately compared. METHODS: At 118 sites, patients who had HCV genotype 1 infection and who had not previously been treated were randomly assigned to undergo 48 weeks of treatment with one of three regimens: peginterferon alfa-2b at a standard dose of 1.5 microg per kilogram of body weight per week or a low dose of 1.0 microg per kilogram per week, plus ribavirin at a dose of 800 to 1400 mg per day, or peginterferon alfa-2a at a dose of 180 microg per week plus ribavirin at a dose of 1000 to 1200 mg per day. We compared the rate of sustained virologic response and the safety and adverse-event profiles between the peginterferon alfa-2b regimens and between the standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b regimen and the peginterferon alfa-2a regimen. RESULTS: Among 3070 patients, rates of sustained virologic response were similar among the regimens: 39.8% with standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, 38.0% with low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, and 40.9% with peginterferon alfa-2a (P=0.20 for standard-dose vs. low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b; P=0.57 for standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b vs. peginterferon alfa-2a). Estimated differences in response rates were 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 6.0) between standard-dose and low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b and -1.1% (95% CI, -5.3 to 3.0) between standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b and peginterferon alfa-2a. Relapse rates were 23.5% (95% CI, 19.9 to 27.2) for standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, 20.0% (95% CI, 16.4 to 23.6) for low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, and 31.5% (95% CI, 27.9 to 35.2) for peginterferon alfa-2a. The safety profile was similar among the three groups; serious adverse events were observed in 8.6 to 11.7% of patients. Among the patients with undetectable HCV RNA levels at treatment weeks 4 and 12, a sustained virologic response was achieved in 86.2% and 78.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients infected with HCV genotype 1, the rates of sustained virologic response and tolerability did not differ significantly between the two available peginterferon-ribavirin regimens or between the two doses of peginterferon alfa-2b. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081770.)

Peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin: effective in patients with hepatitis C who failed interferon alfa/ribavirin therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin produces a sustained virologic response (SVR) in approximately 60% of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients. Alternate options are needed for patients who relapse or do not respond to therapy. METHODS: This prospective, international, multicenter, open-label study evaluated efficacy and safety of peginterferon alfa-2b (1.5 microg/kg/wk) plus weight-based ribavirin (800-1400 mg/day) in 2333 chronic HCV-infected patients with significant fibrosis/cirrhosis whose previous interferon alfa/ribavirin therapy failed. Patients with undetectable HCV-RNA at treatment week (TW) 12 received 48 weeks of therapy; patients with detectable HCV-RNA at TW12 could enter maintenance studies at TW18; 188 patients with low/detectable HCV-RNA at TW12 continued therapy at the investigator's request. RESULTS: Overall, 22% of the patients attained SVR (56% with undetectable HCV-RNA and 12% with low/detectable HCV-RNA at TW12). SVR was better in relapsers (38%) than nonresponders (14%), regardless of previous treatment, and in patients previously treated with interferon-alfa/ribavirin (25%) than peginterferon alfa-ribavirin (17%). Predictors of response in patients with undetectable HCV-RNA at TW12 were genotype (2/3 vs 1, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 2.4; P < .0001), fibrosis score (F2 vs F4; OR, 2.2; F3 vs F4; OR, 1.7; P < .0001), and baseline viral load (< or =600,000 vs >600,000 IU/mL; OR, 1.4; P = .0223). These factors plus previous treatment and response were overall predictors of SVR. Safety was similar among fibrosis groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peginterferon alfa-2b plus weight-based ribavirin is effective and safe in patients who failed interferon alfa/ribavirin therapy. Genotype, baseline viral load, and fibrosis stage were predictors of response.

Peginterferon alfa-2b and weight-based or flat-dose ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a randomized trial.

UNLABELLED: This prospective, multicenter, community-based and academic-based, open-label, investigator-initiated, U.S. study evaluated efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b plus a flat or weight-based dose of ribavirin (RBV) in adults with chronic hepatitis C. Patients (n = 5027) were randomly assigned to receive PEG-IFN alfa-2b 1.5 microg/kg/week plus flat-dose (800 mg/day) or weight-based (800-1400 mg/day) RBV for 48 weeks (patients with genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6) and for 24 or 48 weeks (genotype 2/3 patients). Primary end point was sustained virologic response (undetectable [<125 IU/mL] serum hepatitis C virus RNA at 24-week follow-up). Sustained virologic response, but not end-of-treatment, rates were significantly higher with weight-based than with flat-dose RBV (44.2% versus 40.5%; P = 0.008). Sustained virologic response rates by intention-to-treat analysis were 34.0% and 28.9%, respectively, in genotype 1 patients (P = 0.005) and 31.2% and 26.7%, respectively, in genotype 1 patients with high baseline viral load (P = 0.056). In genotype 2/3 patients, rates were not significantly different (61.8% and 59.5%, respectively) regardless of treatment duration. Besides greater hemoglobin reductions with weight-based RBV, safety profiles were similar across RBV dosing groups, including the 1400-mg/day group. CONCLUSION: PEG-IFN alfa-2b plus weight-based RBV is more effective than flat-dose RBV, particularly in genotype 1 patients, providing equivalent efficacy across all weight groups. RBV 1400 mg/day is appropriate for patients 105 to 125 kg. For genotype 2/3 patients, 24 weeks of treatment with flat-dose RBV is adequate; no evidence of additional benefit of extending treatment to 48 weeks was demonstrated.

A quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) model for evaluating treatments for advanced stage cancer.

Quality of life is an important component in the evaluation of therapies, especially in advanced cancer. Methods available for the analysis of longitudinal quality-of-life data include linear mixed models (including growth curve models), generalized linear models, generalized estimating equations, and joint modeling of quality of life and the missingness process. Quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) has also been useful to compare treatments. By weighting the durations of health states according to their quality of life, one arrives at a single end point reflecting the duration of survival and the quality of life. We propose methods for incorporating longitudinal quality-of-life data into quality-adjusted survival. We divide follow-up time into two states, "poor" and "good," based on a cut-off applied to observed quality-of-life scores. Disease progression is handled as a separate state. We then use survival analysis methods to estimate the mean duration of each state as well as mean quality-adjusted time. The analysis is repeated by varying the cut-off to illustrate the range of possible results. Finally a single summary analysis is achieved by averaging (possibly with weights) across the cut-offs used. We illustrate the methodology using data from a cancer clincial trial.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg administered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: After dietary stabilization, 2-12 week screening/washout period, and 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 538 patients with baseline LDL-C > or =3.8 to < or =6.5 mmol/l and TG < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of eight possible treatments administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10mg; pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline to study endpoint for ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin (pooled doses) compared to pravastatin alone (pooled doses) and ezetimibe alone. The combined use of ezetimibe and pravastatin resulted in significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG compared to pooled pravastatin alone (p<0.01). Coadministration therapy reduced LDL-C by 34-41%, TG by 21-23%, and increased HDL-C by 7.8-8.4%, depending on the dose of pravastatin. The combined regimen was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: When coadministered with pravastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG and was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia.

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study assessed the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 548 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =145 mg/dl (3.75 mmol/L) and < or =250 mg/dl (6.47 mmol/L) and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl (3.99 mmol/L) were randomized to one of the following, administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage decrease in direct LDL cholesterol from baseline to end point for pooled ezetimibe plus lovastatin versus pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin significantly improved concentrations of LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides compared with lovastatin alone (p <0.01). The coadministration of ezetimibe provided an incremental 14% LDL cholesterol decrease, a 5% HDL cholesterol increase, and a 10% decrease in triglycerides compared with pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin provided mean LDL cholesterol decreases of 33% to 45%, median triglyceride decreases of 19% to 27%, and mean HDL cholesterol increases of 8% to 9%, depending on the statin dose. The coadministration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus the starting dose of lovastatin (10 mg) provided comparable efficacy to high-dose lovastatin (40 mg) across the lipid profile (LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). Ezetimibe plus lovastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to both lovastatin alone and placebo. The coadministration of ezetimibe and lovastatin may offer a new treatment option in lipid management of patients with hypercholesterolemia.