Explore the vast range of titles available.

Angiogenesis is an important therapeutic target in colorectal carcinoma. Ramucirumab is a human IgG-1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGF receptor 2. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) for metastatic colorectal cancer in patients with disease progression during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Between Dec 14, 2010, and Aug 23, 2013, we enrolled patients into the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 RAISE trial. Eligible patients had disease progression during or within 6 months of the last dose of first-line therapy. Patients were randomised (1:1) via a centralised, interactive voice-response system to receive 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI or matching placebo plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Randomisation was stratified by region, KRAS mutation status, and time to disease progression after starting first-line treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01183780.ld We enrolled 1072 patients (536 in each group). Median overall survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 12·4–14·5) for patients in the ramucirumab group versus 11·7 months (10·8–12·7) for the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·844 95% CI 0·730–0·976; log-rank p=0·0219). Survival benefit was consistent across subgroups of patients who received ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI. Grade 3 or worse adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (203 [38%] of 529 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hypertension (59 [11%] vs 15 [3%]), diarrhoea (57 [11%] vs 51 [10%]), and fatigue (61 [12%] vs 41 [8%]). Ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. No unexpected adverse events were identified and toxic effects were manageable. Eli Lilly.

Available preclinical and phase 2 clinical data suggest that the addition of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), to chemotherapy might improve outcome in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after platinum-based therapy. In this unmasked, open-label randomised phase 3 trial we enrolled patients with metastatic, unresectable, or locally advanced NSCLC from 121 sites in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older who had experienced progressive disease during or after one previous platinum-based regimen. Initially, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) and then randomly assigned within each group to receive their chemotherapy with or without cetuximab (400 mg/m2 at first dose and 250 mg/m2 weekly thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, after a change in the standard of care, investigators chose whether to treat with pemetrexed or docetaxel on a patient-by-patient basis. The primary analysis was changed to compare progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed versus pemetrexed, on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095199. Between Jan 10, 2005, and Feb 10, 2010, we enrolled 939 patients; data for one patient was accidentally discarded. Of the remaining 938 patients, 605 received pemetrexed (301 patients with cetuximab and 304 alone) and 333 received docetaxel (167 in combination with cetuximab and 166 alone). Median progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·7–3·2) versus 2·8 months (2·5–3·3) with pemetrexed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·87–1·21; p=0·76). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events with cetuximab plus pemetrexed were fatigue (33 [11%] of 292 patients), acneiform rash (31 [11%]), dyspnoea (29 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil count (28 [10%]), and with pemetrexed alone were dyspnoea (35 [12%] of 289 patients), decreased neutrophil count (26 [9%]), and fatigue (23 [8%]). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab plus pemetrexed group (119 [41%] of 292 patients) experienced at least one serious adverse event than those patients in the pemetrexed group (85 [29%] of 289 patients; p=0·0054). Nine (3%) of 292 treated patients in the cetuximab and pemetrexed group died of adverse events compared with five (2%) of 289 treated patients in the pemetrexed alone group. The use of cetuximab is not recommended in combination with chemotherapy in patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. Eli Lilly and Company and ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company.

Summary The objectives of this phase I study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RD), antitumor activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed–paclitaxel combination. Patients ( N  = 95) with advanced solid tumors were assigned to three schedules (21-day cycles [q21d]). Starting doses for each schedule of pemetrexed and paclitaxel, respectively, were: (S1) 400 and 135 mg/m 2 on d1; (S2) 400 mg/m 2 d1 and 40 mg/m 2 d1 and d8; S3) 400 mg/m 2 d8 and 30 mg/m 2 d1 and d8. MTD was 500/135 mg/m 2 (S1), 400/40 mg/m 2 (S2), and 500/120 mg/m 2 (S3). Most common dose limiting toxicities were febrile neutropenia, fatigue, and neuromotor toxicities. Most common toxicity was grade 3/4 lymphopenia. Four patients had partial response, 43 patients had stable disease. The RD determined was pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 (d8) and paclitaxel 90 mg/m 2 (d1 and d8), q21d. The combination was well tolerated and showed efficacy in thyroid carcinoma and mesothelioma.

Objectives. To compare the results of meta- and mega-analysis using three randomized controlled trials of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Methods: The main outcomes of interest were the proportions of patients who relapsed, experienced adverse events, and were withdrawn from therapy. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed for the meta- and mega-analysis. The confidence interval of the ratio of odds ratios assessed the degree of concordance between the two methods. Results. For all comparisons, the odds ratio and confidence intervals of the meta- and mega-analysis were similar. However, the confidence intervals of the ratios of the odds ratios failed to demonstrate that the two techniques were interchangeable. Conclusions. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that mega-analysis is superior to meta-analysis when the same trials are evaluated. However, this finding may be the result of a Type II error.

Objective The 1980 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity for early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. The present work, by a joint committee of the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), was undertaken for the purpose of developing new classification criteria for SSc. Methods Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multicriteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items and simplifying weights. The system was tested by (1) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders, and (2) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. Results It was determined that skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints is sufficient for the patient to be classified as having SSc; if that is not present, seven additive items apply, with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, fingertip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud's phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ACR classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc according to the 1980 ACR criteria were classified as SSc with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. Conclusions The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.