Explore the vast range of titles available.

Alectinib, a potent ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was more effective and somewhat less toxic than crizotinib when used as primary therapy in patients with ALK -positive non–small-cell lung cancer. Importantly, it reduced the risk of CNS relapse.

In a trial of adjuvant treatment for patients with resected ALK -positive non–small-cell lung cancer, disease-free survival at 2 years was 93.6% with the ALK inhibitor alectinib and 63.7% with standard chemotherapy.

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ALK rearrangements generally have a progression-free survival of 8–11 months while on treatment with the ALK inhibitor crizotinib. However, resistance inevitably develops, with the brain a common site of progression. More potent ALK inhibitors with consistently demonstrable CNS activity and good tolerability are needed urgently. Alectinib is a novel, highly selective, and potent ALK inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with crizotinib-naive ALK-rearranged NSCLC. We did a phase 1/2 study of alectinib to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug and examine its activity in patients resistant or intolerant to crizotinib. We enrolled patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who progressed on or were intolerant to crizotinib. We administered various oral doses of alectinib (300–900 mg twice a day) during the dose-escalation portion of the study (phase 1), to ascertain the recommended dose for phase 2. We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.1) to investigate the activity of alectinib in all patients with a baseline scan and at least one post-treatment scan (CT or MRI), with central radiological review of individuals with brain metastases. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of alectinib. Here, we present data for the phase 1 portion of the study, the primary objective of which was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose; phase 2 is ongoing. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01588028. 47 patients were enrolled. Alectinib was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being fatigue (14 [30%]; all grade 1–2), myalgia (eight [17%]; all grade 1–2), and peripheral oedema (seven [15%] grade 1–2, one [2%] grade 3). Dose-limiting toxic effects were recorded in two patients in the cohort receiving alectinib 900 mg twice a day; one individual had grade 3 headache and the other had grade 3 neutropenia. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were increased levels of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (two [4%]), a reduction in the number of neutrophils (two [4%]), and hypophosphataemia (two [4%]). Three patients reported four grade 4 serious adverse events that were deemed unrelated to alectinib: acute renal failure; pleural effusion and pericardial effusion; and brain metastasis. At data cut-off (median follow-up 126 days [IQR 84–217]), 44 patients could be assessed for activity. Investigator-assessed objective responses were noted in 24 (55%) patients, with a confirmed complete response in one (2%), a confirmed partial response in 14 (32%), and an unconfirmed partial response in nine (20%). 16 (36%) patients had stable disease; the remaining four (9%) had progressive disease. Of 21 patients with CNS metastases at baseline, 11 (52%) had an objective response; six (29%) had a complete response (three unconfirmed) and five (24%) had a partial response (one unconfirmed); eight (38%) patients had stable disease and the remaining two (10%) had progressive disease. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that mean exposure (AUC0–10) after multiple doses of alectinib (300–600 mg twice a day) was dose-dependent. Alectinib was well tolerated, with promising antitumour activity in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC resistant to crizotinib, including those with CNS metastases. On the basis of activity, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data, we chose alectinib 600 mg twice a day as the recommended dose for phase 2. Chugai Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffmann La-Roche.

Background and aimsCarvedilol is effective in the primary prophylaxis for large oesophageal varices. We investigated its use in preventing progression of small to large oesophageal varices.MethodsConsecutive cirrhotics with small oesophageal varices were prospectively randomised to either carvedilol (n=70) or placebo (n=70) and followed up for a minimum of 24 months. Endoscopy was done at baseline and six monthly intervals. Hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured at baseline and at 12 months. The primary endpoint was development of large varices.ResultsBaseline characteristics in two groups were comparable. The predominant aetiology of cirrhosis was non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in both the groups. The mean dose of carvedilol administered was 12±1.67 mg/day and the target heart rate achieved was 58±3 bpm. A higher proportion of patients in carvedilol group had non-progression to large varices than placebo (79.4% vs 61.4%; p=0.04); the mean time of non-progression to large varices was 20.8 months (95% CI 19.4 to 22.4) in carvedilol group and 18.7 months (95% CI 17.1 to 20.4) in placebo group (p=0.04). There was a modest reduction of HVPG at 1 year in carvedilol group (−8.64%) compared with placebo (+0.33%) (p=0.22). None of the patients in either group died of variceal bleeding or liver-related causes. No major adverse events were observed in either group.ConclusionsCarvedilol is safe and effective in delaying the progression of small to large oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis.Trial registration numberNCT01196507; post-results.

ObjectivesBeta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) have been preferred therapies for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. However, the choice of therapy in patients with advanced liver disease with high-risk varices is not clear. A comparison of these therapies alone or in combination to prevent the first variceal bleed in advanced cirrhosis patients was carried out.Design330 Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B and C cirrhosis patients, with ‘high-risk’ varices were prospectively enrolled (n=110 per group) to receive carvedilol (group A), VBL (group B) or combination (group C). Primary endpoint was reduction in the incidence of first variceal bleed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included overall mortality, bleed-related mortality, new-onset decompensation, change in hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) and treatment-related adverse events.ResultsThe patients were predominantly males (85.2%), aged 51.4±10.5 years with CTP score of 8.87±1.24, MELD score 15.17±3.35 and HVPG-16.96±3.57 mm Hg. The overall incidence of variceal bleed was 23.8% (n=78) at 1 year. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the combination arm (group C) significantly reduced the incidence of first variceal bleed by 62.9% as compared with group B (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.192 to 0.716, p<0.003) and by 69.3% as compared with group A (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.163 to 0.578, <0.001). The overall mortality was 13.6% (45/330). The 1-year mortality in group C was lowest among the three groups (A, B, C=20%, 14.5%, 6.3%, p=0.012). Reduction in HVPG (20.8% vs 25.1%, p=0.54) and the rate of non-response to carvedilol (53.4% vs 41.25%, p=0.154) were not different between group A and C patients. The incidence of new-onset ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, shock, and acute kidney injury and postbleed organ failure was also comparable between the groups.ConclusionIn CTP B and C cirrhosis patients with high-risk varices, combination of carvedilol and VBL is more effective than either therapy alone, for primary prevention of variceal bleeding.Trial registration number NCT03069339.

β blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II–IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0·35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0·26 (0·07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·74–0–93], p=0–0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0·94 [0·86–1–02], p=0·122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.

Background Cardiac cachexia frequently accompanies the progression of heart failure despite the use of effective therapies for left ventricular dysfunction. Activation of the sympathetic nervous system has been implicated in the pathogenesis of weight loss, but the effects of sympathetic antagonism on cachexia are not well defined. Methods We prospectively evaluated changes in body weight in 2289 patients with heart failure who had dyspnoea at rest or on minimal exertion and a left ventricular ejection fraction <25%. Patients were randomly assigned (double‐blind) to receive either placebo (n = 1133) or carvedilol (n = 1156) and were followed for the occurrence of major clinical events for up to 29 months (COPERNICUS trial). Patients were not enrolled if they had signs of clinically significant fluid retention due to heart failure. Results Patients in the carvedilol group were 33% less likely than patients in the placebo group to experience a further significant loss of weight (>6%) (95% confidence interval: 14–48%, P = 0.002) and were 37% more likely to experience a significant gain in weight (≥5%) (95% confidence interval: 12–66%, P = 0.002). Carvedilol's ability to prevent weight loss was most marked in patients with increased body mass index at baseline, whereas its ability to promote weight gain was most marked in patients with decreased body mass index at baseline. Increases in weight were not accompanied by evidence of fluid retention. Baseline values for body mass index and change in body weight were significant predictors of survival regardless of treatment. Conclusions Carvedilol attenuated the development and promoted a partial reversal of cachexia in patients with severe chronic heart failure, supporting a role for prolonged sympathetic activation in the genesis of weight loss.

As compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of death by 35 percent and the combined risk of death or hospitalization by 24 percent. Beta-blocking agents have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure, 1 – 4 but little is known about the efficacy or safety of these agents in severe heart failure. Earlier large-scale studies with bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol enrolled primarily patients with New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms, and thus they did not provide meaningful information about the effects of these drugs in patients who have symptoms at rest or on minimal exertion. Only one large-scale study of beta-blockade (with bucindolol) focused on patients with severe heart failure; it did not . . .

Propranolol has been used as prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. More recent data suggest that carvedilol may be more effective for reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than propranolol. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response to carvedilol compared with propranolol. A total of 110 patients with a baseline HVPG value >12 mm Hg were allocated randomly to receive either carvedilol or propranolol. The HVPG measurement was repeated after 6 weeks of daily medication. The primary end point was a ≥20% fall in HVPG compared with baseline or <12 mm Hg. The difference in the proportion of responders in the carvedilol (49.1%) vs. propranolol (30.9%) groups did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (P=0.08). However, among patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥15, carvedilol resulted in a significantly greater response than that of propranolol (7/12, 58.3% vs. 0/10, 0%; P=0.005). Similarly, carvedilol was superior to propranolol in patients with Child-Pugh score ≥9 (46.2 vs. 0%; P=0.046). The presence of ascites also had a significant influence on the response rate (51.5 vs. 24.2%; P=0.042). A MELD score ≥15 was the only significant predictor of response among these post hoc groups after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P=0.005). Severe adverse events were higher in the carvedilol group although drug-associated adverse events were not different. Overall, carvedilol offered no clear advantage over propranolol but it may be more effective in advanced cirrhotic patients with a MELD score≥15 in reducing the portal pressure gradient. However, this potential benefit may come with a cost of increased risk of side-effects and outcome data over a longer term is needed to understand the relative risk benefit.