Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intravenous idarucizumab, an antibody fragment of a human antibody specific for dabigatran, produced rapid reversal of the anticoagulant effect in patients with bleeding or an urgent surgical indication with no apparent toxic effects or rebound hypercoagulable state. A non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) is an oral thrombin inhibitor that is licensed for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Although dabigatran is associated with less serious bleeding than warfarin, 1 – 3 life-threatening bleeding can occur; in addition, dabigatran-treated patients may require urgent surgery or intervention, and dabigatran can increase the risk of perioperative bleeding. To improve the treatment of such patients, a specific dabigatran-reversal agent would be beneficial. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment, binds dabigatran with an affinity that is 350 times as . . .

In this study in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and prior treatment failure, those assigned to 12 weeks or 24 weeks of treatment with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, had high rates of sustained response (94 to 99% in all groups). Among the estimated 170 million people in the world who have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, approximately 60% have the genotype 1 strain of the virus. 1 The treatment of patients infected with HCV genotype 1 is evolving rapidly. 2 – 6 At the end of 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two new direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection: the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir (Gilead Sciences) and the protease inhibitor simeprevir (Janssen Therapeutics). 7 , 8 Among the regimens that have been approved by the FDA for patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who have not had a . . .

Vitamin K antagonists are the only oral anticoagulants approved for long-term treatment of patients with a cardiac valve replacement. This study aims to test a new dosing regimen for dabigatran etexilate in patients with a mechanical bileaflet valve. Patients aged ≥18 years and ≤75 years, either undergoing implantation of a mechanical bileaflet valve (aortic or mitral or both) during the current hospital stay or having undergone implantation a mitral bileaflet valve >3 months before randomization, will be randomized between dabigatran etexilate or warfarin (in a ratio of 2:1) in an open-label design. Initial doses of dabigatran will be based on the estimated creatinine clearance, and the doses will be adjusted based on measuring trough dabigatran plasma levels to achieve levels ≥50 ng/mL at steady state. Doses will range between 150 mg twice a day and 300 mg twice a day. Warfarin management and target international normalized ratio will be according to current practice guidelines at the discretion of the treating physicians. The plan is to treat 270 patients with dabigatran etexilate for a total study population of approximately 405 patients. Clinical efficacy and safety outcomes will be analyzed in an exploratory manner. RE-ALIGN is the first study to test an alternative to warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. A definitive phase III study will be planned based on the results of this study.

Effectiveness and safety of warfarin is associated with the time in therapeutic range (TTR) with an international normalised ratio (INR) of 2·0–3·0. In the Randomised Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran versus warfarin reduced both stroke and haemorrhage. We aimed to investigate the primary and secondary outcomes of the RE-LY trial in relation to each centre's mean TTR (cTTR) in the warfarin population. In the RE-LY trial, 18 113 patients at 951 sites were randomly assigned to 110 mg or 150 mg dabigatran twice daily versus warfarin dose adjusted to INR 2·0–3·0. Median follow-up was 2·0 years. For 18 024 patients at 906 sites, the cTTR was estimated by averaging TTR for individual warfarin-treated patients calculated by the Rosendaal method. We compared the outcomes of RE-LY across the three treatment groups within four groups defined by the quartiles of cTTR. RE-LY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00262600. The quartiles of cTTR for patients in the warfarin group were: less than 57·1%, 57·1–65·5%, 65·5–72·6%, and greater than 72·6%. There were no significant interactions between cTTR and prevention of stroke and systemic embolism with either 110 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·89) or 150 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·20) versus warfarin. Neither were any significant interactions recorded with cTTR with regards to intracranial bleeding with 110 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·71) or 150 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·89) versus warfarin. There was a significant interaction between cTTR and major bleeding when comparing 150 mg dabigatran with warfarin (interaction p=0·03), with less bleeding events at lower cTTR but similar events at higher cTTR, whereas rates of major bleeding were lower with 110 mg dabigatran than with warfarin irrespective of cTTR. There were significant interactions between cTTR and effects of both 110 mg and 150 mg dabigatran versus warfarin on the composite of all cardiovascular events (interaction p=0·036 and p=0·0006, respectively) and total mortality (interaction p=0·066 and p=0·052, respectively) with reduced event rates at low cTTR, and similar rates at high cTTR. The benefits of 150 mg dabigatran at reducing stroke, 110 mg dabigatran at reducing bleeding, and both doses at reducing intracranial bleeding versus warfarin were consistent irrespective of centres' quality of INR control. For all vascular events, non-haemorrhagic events, and mortality, advantages of dabigatran were greater at sites with poor INR control than at those with good INR control. Overall, these results show that local standards of care affect the benefits of use of new treatment alternatives. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Objectives To determine the incremental net health benefits of dabigatran etexilate 110 mg and 150 mg twice daily and warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and to estimate the cost effectiveness of dabigatran in the United Kingdom.Design Quantitative benefit-harm and economic analyses using a discrete event simulation model to extrapolate the findings of the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) study to a lifetime horizon.Setting UK National Health Service.Population Cohorts of 50 000 simulated patients at moderate to high risk of stroke with a mean baseline CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke/transient ischaemic attack) score of 2.1.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost per QALY of dabigatran compared with warfarin.Results Compared with warfarin, low dose and high dose dabigatran were associated with positive incremental net benefits of 0.094 (95% central range −0.083 to 0.267) and 0.146 (−0.029 to 0.322) QALYs. Positive incremental net benefits resulted for high dose dabigatran in 94% of simulations versus warfarin and in 76% of those versus low dose dabigatran. In the economic analysis, high dose dabigatran dominated the low dose, had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £23 082 (€26 700; $35 800) per QALY gained versus warfarin, and was more cost effective in patients with a baseline CHADS2 score of 3 or above. However, at centres that achieved good control of international normalised ratio, such as those in the UK, dabigatran 150 mg was not cost effective, at £42 386 per QALY gained.Conclusions This analysis supports regulatory decisions that dabigatran offers a positive benefit to harm ratio when compared with warfarin. However, no subgroup for which dabigatran 110 mg offered any clinical or economic advantage over 150 mg was identified. High dose dabigatran will be cost effective only forpatients at increased risk of stroke or for whom international normalised ratio is likely to be less well controlled.

The addition of veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, to induction chemotherapy and maintenance therapy in women with advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival over induction chemotherapy alone without maintenance therapy. The improvement was especially notable in patients with mutated BRCA or homologous-recombination defects.

Background: Binimetinib (MEK162; ARRY-438162) is a potent and selective oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor. This phase 1 study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and preliminary anti-tumour activity of binimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumours, with expansion cohorts of patients with biliary cancer or KRAS - or BRAF -mutant colorectal cancer. Methods: Binimetinib was administered twice daily. Expansion cohorts were enroled after MTD determination following a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Pharmacokinetic properties were determined from plasma samples. Tumour samples were assessed for mutations in RAS , RAF , and other relevant genes. Pharmacodynamic properties were evaluated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Results: Ninety-three patients received binimetinib (dose-escalation phase, 19; expansion, 74). The MTD was 60 mg twice daily, with dose-limiting adverse events (AEs) of dermatitis acneiform and chorioretinopathy. The dose for expansion patients was subsequently decreased to 45 mg twice daily because of the frequency of treatment-related ocular toxicity at the MTD. Common AEs across all dose levels included rash (81%), nausea (56%), vomiting (52%), diarrhoea (51%), peripheral oedema (46%), and fatigue (43%); most were grade 1/2. Dose-proportional increases in binimetinib exposure were observed and target inhibition was demonstrated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Three patients with biliary cancer had objective responses (one complete and two partial). Conclusions: Binimetinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, target inhibition, and dose-proportional exposure. The 45 mg twice daily dose was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. The three objective responses in biliary cancer patients are encouraging and support further evaluation in this population.

Currently, no worldwide approved therapies exist for adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. The KOMET study aimed to evaluate selumetinib (ARRY-142886, AZD6244) efficacy and safety in this population. This ongoing multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3, parallel, double-blind trial randomly assigned adults with NF1-plexiform neurofibroma 1:1 to 28-day cycles of oral selumetinib 25 mg/m2 twice daily, or placebo with crossover to selumetinib at confirmed radiological progression or the end of cycle 12. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (confirmed partial or complete response) established by use of independent central review per Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) criteria by cycle 16 (selumetinib vs placebo). This study (KOMET) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04924608 and is ongoing. Overall, of 184 participants enrolled, 145 adults were randomly assigned to selumetinib (n=71) or placebo (n=74). Selumetinib led to a rapid response (median 3·7 months), with an objective response rate of 20% (n=14/71; 95% CI 11·2 to 30·9) by cycle 16 versus 5% (n=4/74; 1·5 to 13·3) with placebo (p=0·011). Participants with baseline chronic pain intensity scores of at least 3 had a greater reduction in score at cycle 12 with selumetinib versus placebo (least-squares mean [SE] −2·0 [0·30] −2·6 to −1·4, vs −1·3 [0·29] −1·8 to −0·7; p=0·070), although this did not reach significance; and a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline. Change from baseline to cycle 12 in PlexiQoL total scores between treatment groups was not significant (least-squares mean difference [SE] −0·1 [0·59]; −1·2 to 1·1). Adverse events were consistent with the known selumetinib safety profile. In the first international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in adults with NF1-plexiform neurofibromas, selumetinib achieved a significant objective response rate versus placebo. No new safety concerns were identified. The observations of reduction in tumour volume by cycle 16, reduction in chronic and spike pain, reduction in analgesia, and decrease in pain interference over placebo show that selumetinib is effective at treating plexiform neurofibromas in adults with NF1. AstraZeneca as part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Introduction and Objective Pulmonary capillary endothelial transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 (TRPV4) channel plays a critical role in mediating the development of cardiogenic pulmonary edema. GSK2798745 is a first-in-class, highly potent, selective, orally active TRPV4 channel blocker being evaluated in a first-time-in-humans study (NCT02119260). Methods GSK2798745 was administered in a randomized, placebo-controlled study design to healthy volunteers in three separate cohorts as single escalating doses, with and without food, and as once-daily repeat doses for up to 14 days, respectively. Two cohorts of subjects with mild to moderate heart failure were also administered GSK2798745 once daily for up to 7 days. Safety, tolerability, and systemic exposure data were collected. Results No significant safety issues or serious adverse events were observed with GSK2798745 in healthy volunteers and patients with heart failure. GSK2798745 systemic exposure data demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics up to 12.5 mg, less than twofold accumulation with once-daily dosing, and a systemic half-life of ~ 13 h. There was a slight increase in GSK2798745 exposure [14% increase in area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) and 9% increase in maximum observed plasma concentration ( C max )] after administration with a high-fat meal. Conclusions GSK2798745 was well-tolerated in healthy volunteers and patients with stable heart failure. The safety and exposure data obtained in this study allow further evaluation of the drug in long-term clinical studies in heart failure as well as other indications.

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage. The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. 784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13·4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13·5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·92–1·09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1·09, 1·01–1·18, p=0·037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2·21%]) and ramipril (174 [2·03%]; HR 1·09, 0·89–1·34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2·49%]: HR 1·24, 1·01–1·51, p=0·038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (−2·82 [SD 17·2] mL/min/1·73 m 2 vs −4·12 [17·4], p<0·0001) or combination therapy (−6·11 [17·9], p<0·0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0·004) or with combination therapy (p=0·001) than with ramipril. In people at high vascular risk, telmisartan's effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes. Boehringer-Ingelheim.