Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial, 5661 patients with acute myocardial infarction and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both were assigned to receive either sacubitril–valsartan or ramipril. At a median of 22 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure.

Summary Odanacatib is a cathepsin K inhibitor investigated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Phase 2 data indicate that 50 mg once weekly inhibits bone resorption and increases bone mineral density, with only a transient decrease in bone formation. We describe the background, design and participant characteristics for the phase 3 registration trial. Introduction Odanacatib (ODN) is a selective cathepsin K inhibitor being evaluated for the treatment of osteoporosis. In a phase 2 trial, ODN 50 mg once weekly reduced bone resorption while preserving bone formation and progressively increased BMD over 5 years. We describe the phase III Long-Term ODN Fracture Trial (LOFT), an event-driven, randomized, blinded placebo-controlled trial, with preplanned interim analyses to permit early termination if significant fracture risk reduction was demonstrated. An extension was planned, with participants remaining on their randomized treatment for up to 5 years, then transitioning to open-label ODN. Methods The three primary outcomes were radiologically determined vertebral, hip, and clinical non-vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included clinical vertebral fractures, BMD, bone turnover markers, and safety and tolerability, including bone histology. Participants were women, 65 years or older, with a BMD T-score ≤−2.5 at the total hip (TH) or femoral neck (FN) or with a prior radiographic vertebral fracture and a T-score ≤−1.5 at the TH or FN. They were randomized to ODN or placebo tablets. All received weekly vitamin D 3 (5600 international units (IU)) and daily calcium supplements as needed to ensure a daily intake of approximately 1200 mg. Results Altogether, 16,713 participants were randomized at 387 centers. After a planned interim analysis, an independent data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped early due to robust efficacy and a favorable benefit/risk profile. Following the base study closeout, 8256 participants entered the study extension. Conclusions This report details the background and study design of this fracture end point trial and describes the baseline characteristics of its participants.

Patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options. Hedgehog pathway signalling is aberrantly activated in around 95% of tumours. We assessed the antitumour activity of sonidegib, a Hedgehog signalling inhibitor, in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. BOLT is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had locally advanced basal cell carcinoma not amenable to curative surgery or radiation or metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomised via an automated system in a 1:2 ratio to receive 200 mg or 800 mg oral sonidegib daily, stratified by disease, histological subtype, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy analysis population (patients with fully assessable locally advanced disease and all those with metastatic disease) with data collected up to 6 months after randomisation of the last patient. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327053. Between July 20, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, we enrolled 230 patients, 79 in the 200 mg sonidegib group, and 151 in the 800 mg sonidegib group. Median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 10·1–17·3). In the primary efficacy analysis population, 20 (36%, 95% CI 24–50) of 55 patients receiving 200 mg sonidegib and 39 (34%, 25–43) of 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response. In the 200 mg sonidegib group, 18 (43%, 95% CI 28–59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and two (15%, 2–45) among the 13 with metastatic disease. In the 800 mg group, 35 (38%, 95% CI 28–48) of 93 patients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5–39) of 23 with metastatic disease. Fewer adverse events leading to dose interruptions or reductions (25 [32%] of 79 patients vs 90 [60%] of 150) or treatment discontinuation (17 [22%] vs 54 [36%]) occurred in patients in the 200 mg group than in the 800 mg group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were raised creatine kinase (five [6%] in the 200 mg group vs 19 [13%] in the 800 mg group) and lipase concentration (four [5%] vs eight [5%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (14%) of 79 patients in the 200 mg group and 45 (30%) of 150 patients in the 800 mg group. The benefit-to-risk profile of 200 mg sonidegib might offer a new treatment option for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, a population that is difficult to treat. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Persons with prehypertension (formerly, “borderline hypertension”) were randomly assigned in a blinded fashion to receive two years of candesartan or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. Over four years, therapy with candesartan reduced the risk of the development of hypertension by 15.6 percent (P<0.007). Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical usefulness and ultimate safety of antihypertensive treatment for prehypertension. Persons with prehypertension were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan or placebo. Therapy with candesartan reduced the risk of the development of hypertension by 15.6 percent. The name of the range of blood pressures between what is clearly normal and what is definitely hypertensive changed from “transient hypertension” in the 1940s 1 to “borderline hypertension” in the 1970s, 2 “high-normal blood pressure” in the 1990s, 3 and most recently, “prehypertension” in 2003. 4 Regardless of terminology, this condition is a precursor of hypertension 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 and is associated with excess morbidity and deaths from cardiovascular causes. 1 , 2 , 7 – 10 Furthermore, an association of prehypertension with other cardiovascular risk factors has been established. 11 – 14 The Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) 15 was an investigator-initiated study to examine whether early treatment of . . .

Effective antihypertensive therapy is essential for achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control and reducing cardiovascular events. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial aimed to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a combination of amlodipine (AML) and candesartan cilexetil (CC) versus AML monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension (HTN). After a 4-week run-in period with AML 5 mg, patients whose HTN remained uncontrolled (diastolic BP [DBP]) ≥ 90 mmHg and < 120 mmHg) were randomized to receive either AML + CC or AML alone for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by measuring changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP). The primary safety measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A total of 174 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. After 8 weeks, DBP decreased by -9.92 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML + CC arm and - 2.08 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML arm ( p  < 0.0001). SBP decreased by -14.27 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML + CC arm versus - 2.77 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML arm ( p  < 0.0001). AEs occurred in 11.24% of the AML + CC group and 5.62% of the AML group ( p  = 0.1773). AML + CC combination therapy demonstrated superior efficacy with good tolerance, making it a promising option for patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on amlodipine alone.

Background The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. Methods This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. Results Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC ( n  = 66) was 56.1% (43.3–68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7–81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8–72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0–84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). Conclusions Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. Trial registration BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on average. There is a pressing need for blood pressure-control strategies with improved efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to assess whether ultra-low-dose combination therapy could meet these needs. We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of a quadpill—a single capsule containing four blood pressure-lowering drugs each at quarter-dose (irbesartan 37·5 mg, amlodipine 1·25 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6·25 mg, and atenolol 12·5 mg). Participants with untreated hypertension were enrolled from four centres in the community of western Sydney, NSW, Australia, mainly by general practitioners. Participants were randomly allocated by computer to either the quadpill or matching placebo for 4 weeks; this treatment was followed by a 2-week washout, then the other study treatment was administered for 4 weeks. Study staff and participants were unaware of treatment allocations, and masking was achieved by use of identical opaque capsules. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by intention to treat. We also did a systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quarter-standard-dose blood pressure-lowering therapy against placebo. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614001057673. The trial ended after 1 year and this report presents the final analysis. Between November, 2014, and December, 2015, 55 patients were screened for our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation. Mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 11) and mean baseline office and 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 154 (14)/90 (11) mm Hg and 140 (9)/87 (8) mm Hg, respectively. One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administrative reasons. The placebo-corrected reduction in systolic 24-h blood pressure with the quadpill was 19 mm Hg (95% CI 14–23), and office blood pressure was reduced by 22/13 mm Hg (p<0·0001). During quadpill treatment, 18 (100%) of 18 participants achieved office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, compared with six (33%) of 18 during placebo treatment (p=0·0013). There were no serious adverse events and all patients reported that the quadpill was easy to swallow. Our systematic review identified 36 trials (n=4721 participants) of one drug at quarter-dose and six trials (n=312) of two drugs at quarter-dose, against placebo. The pooled placebo-corrected blood pressure-lowering effects were 5/2 mm Hg and 7/5 mm Hg, respectively (both p<0·0001), and there were no side-effects from either regimen. The findings of our small trial in the context of previous randomised evidence suggest that the benefits of quarter-dose therapy could be additive across classes and might confer a clinically important reduction in blood pressure. Further examination of the quadpill concept is needed to investigate effectiveness against usual treatment options and longer term tolerability. National Heart Foundation, Australia; University of Sydney; and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of Allisartan Isoproxil 240 mg and Amlodipine 5 mg (ALI/AML) compared to AML 5 mg monotherapy in patients with mild‐to‐moderate essential hypertension. In this phase III, multicenter, double‐blind, parallel‐group, randomized controlled trial, patients aged 18–70 years with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) between 140 and <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) between 90 and <110 mmHg, following a 4‐week treatment with AML 5 mg, were randomized 1:1 to receive either ALI/AML or AML once daily for 12 weeks. This 12‐week double‐blind period was followed by an open‐label extension of ALI/AML treatment through week 52. A total of 300 patients were enrolled, with 149 and 151 patients randomly assigned to ALI/AML and AML groups, respectively. Of these, 257 patients completed the study. Baseline demographics and characteristics were comparable between groups. After 12 weeks, the reduction in msSBP (the primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (–15.7 vs. –10.2 mmHg, p = 0.0019). Similarly, reductions in msDBP (–5.7 vs. –2.4 mmHg, p < 0.001) and 24‐h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP (–10.4 and –7.7 mmHg vs. –5.6 and –3.8 mmHg) were more pronounced in the ALI/AML group. Additionally, a higher proportion of patients achieved both a BP response and target office BP in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (51.4% vs. 37.4%, 42.5% vs. 30.6%, both p < 0.05). The ALI/AML combination was generally well tolerated, and the antihypertensive effect was maintained for up to 52 weeks. In patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by AML, the ALI/AML combination provided superior reductions in msSBP and was significantly more effective than AML monotherapy. This once‐daily single‐pill combination demonstrated promising efficacy and tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06465264

In a multicenter trial, 4128 patients who had heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive irbesartan or placebo and were followed for a mean of 49.5 months. There were no significant differences between the two study groups in the rate of the primary outcome (death or hospitalization for heart failure). In a multicenter trial, patients who had heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction received irbesartan or placebo and were followed for a mean of 49.5 months. There were no significant differences in death or hospitalization for heart failure. Approximately half of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure have a normal or near-normal left ventricular ejection fraction. 1 – 5 Such patients differ from those with heart failure and a low left ventricular ejection fraction in a number of important ways: they tend to be older and female, and their condition is more likely to be associated with hypertension than with ischemia. The rates of death and illness among these patients are high and have not declined, as they have in patients with heart failure and a low left ventricular ejection fraction. 6 Unfortunately, no pharmacologic therapy has been shown to . . .

Sonidegib is a selective inhibitor of Smoothened receptor, which is a key regulator of the Hedgehog signaling pathway. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose based on dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and the recommended dose (RD) of sonidegib in Asian patients with advanced solid tumors. This was an open‐label, single‐arm, multicenter, two‐group, parallel, dose‐escalation, phase I study undertaken in Asian patients; group 1 included patients from Japan and group 2 included patients from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Dose escalation was guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model dependent on DLTs in cycle 1 and other safety findings. A total of 45 adult Asian patients with confirmed advanced solid tumors were enrolled. Group 1 included 21 patients (12 treated with 400 mg q.d. [once daily] and 9 treated with 600 mg q.d.) and group 2 included 24 patients (12 treated with 400 mg q.d., 8 treated with 600 mg q.d., and 4 treated with 800 mg q.d.). Elevation in creatine kinase was the DLT in both groups. The most common adverse events suspected to be related to sonidegib in both patient groups were increase in creatine kinase levels, myalgia, fatigue, and abnormal hepatic function. The RD of 400 mg q.d. was defined in both groups. Difference in tolerability was noted between the East Asian patients and Western population. The RD in East Asian patients (400 mg q.d.) was lower than in patients from Europe and the USA (800 mg q.d. and 250 mg twice daily). (Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01208831.) Sonidegib showed a similar safety profile in East Asian patients as that of Western population. No new AEs were reported in the Asian population. The recommended dose of sonidegib in East Asian patients (400 mg) was lower than Western MTD (800 mg daily or 250 mg twice daily) suggesting a difference in tolerability between the 2 populations.