Explore the vast range of titles available.

Amivantamab, an antibody against MET and EGFR, plus lazertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, induced a response in 86% of previously untreated patients and led to a median progression-free survival of nearly 2 years.

In this trial, 14,264 patients with atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to receive either rivaroxaban or warfarin. In a per-protocol, as-treated analysis, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increase in the risk of ischemic stroke by a factor of four to five 1 and accounts for up to 15% of strokes in persons of all ages and 30% in persons over the age of 80 years. 2 The use of vitamin K antagonists is highly effective for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and is recommended for persons at increased risk. 3 – 5 However, food and drug interactions necessitate frequent coagulation monitoring and dose adjustments, requirements that make it difficult for many patients to use such drugs in clinical practice. 6 – 8 Rivaroxaban is . . .

In a phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE, a composite response (on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index–4) occurred in 54% of those who received iberdomide (0.45 mg), as compared with 35% in the placebo group, but this between-group difference was not significant at lower doses. Urinary tract and respiratory tract infections and neutropenia occurred.

In patients with acute coronary syndromes, low doses of rivaroxaban were effective in reducing the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Rivaroxaban also reduced overall mortality, although there was more bleeding. After an acute coronary syndrome, patients remain at risk for recurrent cardiovascular events despite standard medical therapy, including long-term antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and an adenosine diphosphate–receptor inhibitor. This risk may be related in part to excess thrombin generation that persists beyond the acute presentation in such patients. 1 As a result, there has been interest in evaluating the role of oral anticoagulants after an acute coronary syndrome. Improved cardiovascular outcomes were reported for patients who were treated with the anticoagulant warfarin in addition to aspirin. 2 However, widespread use of long-term warfarin in such patients has been limited by challenges associated . . .

The risk of venous thromboembolism is high after total hip arthroplasty and could persist after hospital discharge. Our aim was to compare the use of rivaroxaban for extended thromboprophylaxis with short-term thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin. 2509 patients scheduled to undergo elective total hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned, stratified according to centre, with a computer-generated randomisation code, to receive oral rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 31–39 days (with placebo injection for 10–14 days; n=1252), or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily subcutaneously for 10–14 days (with placebo tablet for 31–39 days; n=1257). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis (symptomatic or asymptomatic detected by mandatory, bilateral venography), non-fatal pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality up to day 30–42. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which consisted of all patients who had received at least one dose of study medication, had undergone planned surgery, and had adequate assessment of thromboembolism. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00332020. The modified intention-to-treat population for the analysis of the primary efficacy outcome consisted of 864 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 869 in the enoxaparin group. The primary outcome occurred in 17 (2·0%) patients in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 81 (9·3%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction 7·3%, 95% CI 5·2–9·4; p<0·0001). The incidence of any on-treatment bleeding was much the same in both groups (81 [6·6%] events in 1228 patients in the rivaroxaban safety population vs 68 [5·5%] of 1229 patients in the enoxaparin safety population; p=0·25). Extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban was significantly more effective than short-term enoxaparin plus placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism, including symptomatic events, in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Bayer HealthCare AG, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC.

FGFR2 rearrangements resulting in dysregulated signaling are drivers of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) tumorigenesis, and occur almost exclusively in intrahepatic CCA. Pemigatinib, a selective, potent, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in a Phase II study of patients with previously treated locally advanced/metastatic CCA harboring fusions/rearrangements. We describe the study design of FIGHT-302, an open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, global, Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of first-line pemigatinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced CCA with rearrangements (NCT03656536). The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary end points are objective response rate, overall survival, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03656536 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation is a hallmark of endocrine therapy-resistant, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This phase 3 study assessed the efficacy of the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib plus fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer, including an evaluation of the PI3K pathway activation status as a biomarker for clinical benefit. The BELLE-2 trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor (HER2)-negative inoperable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose disease had progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor treatment and had received up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive voice response technology (block size of 6) on day 15 of cycle 1 to receive oral buparlisib (100 mg/day) or matching placebo, starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Patients were assigned randomisation numbers with a validated interactive response technology; these numbers were linked to different treatment groups which in turn were linked to treatment numbers. PI3K status in tumour tissue was determined via central laboratory during a 14-day run-in phase. Randomisation was stratified by PI3K pathway activation status (activated vs non-activated vs and unknown) and visceral disease status (present vs absent). Patients, investigators, local radiologists, study team, and anyone involved in the study were masked to the identity of the treatment until unblinding. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in the total population, in patients with known (activated or non-activated) PI3K pathway status, and in PI3K pathway-activated patients. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01610284, and is currently ongoing but not recruiting participants. Between Sept 7, 2012, and Sept 10, 2014, 1147 patients from 267 centres in 29 countries were randomly assigned to receive buparlisib (n=576) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n=571). In the total patient population (n=1147), median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·8–7·8) in the buparlisib group versus 5·0 months (4·0–5·2) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·67–0·89]; one-sided p=0·00021). In patients with known PI3K status (n=851), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–7·0) in the buparlisib group vs 4·5 months (3·3–5·0) in the placebo group (HR 0·80 [95% CI 0·68–0·94]; one-sided p=0·0033). In PI3K pathway-activated patients (n=372), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 4·9–7·1) in the buparlisib group versus 4·0 months (3·1–5·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [0·60–0·97], one-sided p=0·014). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the buparlisib group versus the placebo group were increased alanine aminotransferase (146 [25%] of 573 patients vs six [1%] of 570), increased aspartate aminotransferase (103 [18%] vs 16 [3%]), hyperglycaemia (88 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and rash (45 [8%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported in 134 (23%) of 573 patients in the buparlisib group compared with 90 [16%] of 570 patients in the placebo group; the most common serious adverse events (affecting ≥2% of patients) were increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [3%] of 573 vs one [<1%] of 570) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (14 [2%] vs one [<1%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The results from this study show that PI3K inhibition combined with endocrine therapy is effective in postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Use of more selective PI3K inhibitors, such as α-specific PI3K inhibitor, is warranted to further improve safety and benefit in this setting. No further studies are being pursued because of the toxicity associated with this combination. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Background and Objective: Rivaroxaban is an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor, which is at an advanced stage of clinical development for prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Two phase II studies, ODIXa-DVT and EINSTEIN DVT, assessed the efficacy and safety of oral rivaroxaban (once daily or twice daily) for treatment of acute deep-vein thrombosis (DVT). Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses of rivaroxaban in patients in these two phase II studies were conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban and the relationship between important patient covariates and model parameters. Exposure simulations in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) were also performed in order to predict the exposure of rivaroxaban, using modified demographic data reflecting the characteristics of a typical AF population. Methods: A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using plasma samples from these patients. Various simulations were conducted to explore the pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban in patients with DVT and to predict exposure in those with AF. Correlations between plasma rivaroxaban concentrations and the prothrombin time, Factor Xa activity, HepTest® and activated partial thromboplastin time were also described. Results: The pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban in patients with DVT were found to be consistent and predictable across all doses studied. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) increased dose dependently. The same total daily doses given once daily achieved higher maximum plasma concentration (C max ) values (∼20%) and lower trough (minimum) plasma concentration (C trough ) values (∼60%) than when given twice daily; however, the 5th–95th percentile ranges for these parameters overlapped. Rivaroxaban clearance was moderately influenced by age and renal function, and the volume of distribution was influenced by age, body weight and sex; the effects were within the observed interindividual variability. Simulations in virtual patient populations with AF showed that a rivaroxaban dose of 15 mg once daily in patients with creatinine clearance of 30–49 mL/min would achieve AUC and C max values similar to those observed with 20 mg once daily in patients with normal renal function. The prothrombin time correlated almost linearly with plasma rivaroxaban concentrations (≤500 µg/L). Conclusion: Population analyses of phase II clinical data indicated that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of all rivaroxaban doses were predictable and were affected by expected demographic factors in patients with acute DVT.

Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma and multiple myeloma are limited. CUDC-907 is an oral, first-in-class, small molecule that is designed to inhibit both histone deacetylase (HDAC) and PI3K enzymes, which are members of common oncogenic pathways in haematological malignancies. We aimed to assess overall safety and preliminary activity in this dose-escalation study of CUDC-907 monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma and multiple myeloma. This open-label, first-in-man, phase 1 trial recruited adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with lymphoma or multiple myeloma who were refractory to or had relapsed after two or more previous regimens, from four US cancer centres. CUDC-907 was orally administered in a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design at four different dosing schedules, to which participants were sequentially assigned as follows: once daily, intermittently (twice or three times weekly; simultaneous enrolment), and daily for 5 days followed by a 2-day break (5/2), in 21-day cycles. Dosing started at 30 mg for the once-daily schedule and 60 mg for other schedules, escalating in 30 mg increments. Patients continued to receive CUDC-907 until disease progression or until other treatment discontinuation criteria were met. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose, assessed in patients who received at least 66% of cycle 1 doses without modification and those who had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in cycle 1 irrespective of dose modification. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01742988. Between Jan 23, 2013, and July 27, 2015, we enrolled 44 patients, of whom ten were sequentially assigned to CUDC-907 once-daily (MTD 60 mg), 12 to twice-weekly (MTD 150 mg), 15 to three-times-weekly (MTD 150 mg), and seven to the 5/2 dosing schedule (MTD 60 mg). 37 (84%) patients had discontinued study drug as a result of progressive disease or clinical signs of progressive disease at the data cutoff. Four DLTs occurred in three of 40 DLT-evaluable patients (diarrhoea and hyperglycaemia in one patient on 60 mg once daily, hyperglycaemia in one patient on 150 mg twice weekly, and diarrhoea in one patient on 150 mg three times weekly); no DLTs were reported in patients on the 5/2 schedule. Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 19 (43%) of 44 patients, the most common of which were thrombocytopenia (in nine [20%] of 44 patients), neutropenia (three [7%]), and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]). 11 (25%) of 44 patients had serious adverse events, three of which were regarded as treatment related (epistaxis and the DLTs of diarrhoea and hyperglycaemia). Adverse events led to dose reductions in six (14%) patients and treatment discontinuation in seven (16%). Five (14%) of 37 response-evaluable patients achieved an objective response (two complete responses and three partial responses). All five responses occurred in the subgroup of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n=9), and three occurred in those with transformed follicular lymphoma DLBCL (n=5). 21 (57%) of 37 response-evaluable patients had stable disease, including those with DLBCL, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. On the basis of these findings, we selected CUDC-907 60 mg on the 5/2 dosing schedule as the recommended phase 2 dose. The safety and tolerability profile of CUDC-907 and the promising preliminary evidence of response support continued development of CUDC-907 at the 60 mg 5/2 dosing schedule, alone and in combination with other therapies. A dose-expansion trial of this dose in patients with refractory and relapsed DLBCL in particular, is ongoing. Curis, Inc, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

In ROCKET AF, rivaroxaban was non-inferior to adjusted-dose warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to investigate whether the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin is consistent among the subgroups of patients with and without previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). In ROCKET AF, patients with AF who were at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) in a double-blind manner to rivaroxaban 20 mg daily or adjusted dose warfarin (international normalised ratio 2·0–3·0). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Between Dec 18, 2006, and June 17, 2009, 14 264 patients from 1178 centres in 45 countries were randomly assigned. The primary endpoint was the composite of stroke or non-CNS systemic embolism. In this substudy we assessed the interaction of the treatment effects of rivaroxaban and warfarin among patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat and safety analyses were done in the on-treatment population. ROCKET AF is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00403767. 7468 (52%) patients had a previous stroke (n=4907) or TIA (n=2561) and 6796 (48%) had no previous stroke or TIA. The number of events per 100 person-years for the primary endpoint in patients treated with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was consistent among patients with previous stroke or TIA (2·79% rivaroxaban vs 2·96% warfarin; hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·77–1·16) and those without (1·44%vs 1·88%; 0·77, 0·58–1·01; interaction p=0·23). The number of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding events per 100 person-years in patients treated with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was consistent among patients with previous stroke or TIA (13·31% rivaroxaban vs 13·87% warfarin; HR 0·96, 95% CI 0·87–1·07) and those without (16·69%vs 15·19%; 1·10, 0·99–1·21; interaction p=0·08). There was no evidence that the relative efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was different between patients who had a previous stroke or TIA and those who had no previous stroke or TIA. These results support the use of rivaroxaban as an alternative to warfarin for prevention of recurrent as well as initial stroke in patients with AF. Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development and Bayer HealthCare.