Explore the vast range of titles available.

Acalabrutinib is a selective, covalent Bruton tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with activity in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab against chlorambucil with obinutuzumab in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. ELEVATE TN is a global, phase 3, multicentre, open-label study in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia done at 142 academic and community hospitals in 18 countries. Eligible patients had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and were aged 65 years or older, or older than 18 years and younger than 65 years with creatinine clearance of 30-69 mL/min (calculated by use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score greater than 6. Additional criteria included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less and adequate haematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Patients with significant cardiovascular disease were excluded, and concomitant treatment with warfarin or equivalent vitamin K antagonists was prohibited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via an interactive voice or web response system to receive acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib monotherapy, or obinutuzumab and oral chlorambucil. Treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. To reduce infusion-related reactions, acalabrutinib was administered for one cycle before obinutuzumab administration. Oral acalabrutinib was administered (100 mg) twice a day until progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. In the acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 2 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 3-7. In the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 1 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 2-6. Oral chlorambucil was given (0·5 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each cycle, for six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival between the two combination-therapy groups, assessed by independent review committee. Crossover to acalabrutinib was allowed in patients who progressed on obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. Enrolment for this trial is complete, and the study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02475681. Between Sept 14, 2015, and Feb 8, 2017, we recruited 675 patients for assessment. 140 patients did not meet eligibility criteria, and 535 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab, 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy, and 177 patients were assigned to receive obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. At median follow-up of 28·3 months (IQR 25·6-33·1), median progression-free survival was longer with acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab and acalabrutinib monotherapy, compared with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (median not reached with acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab vs 22·6 months with obinutuzumab, hazard ratio [HR] 0·1; 95% CI 0·06-0·17, p<0·0001; and not reached with acalabrutinib monotherapy vs 22·6 months with obinutuzumab, 0·20; 0·13-0·3, p<0·0001). Estimated progression-free survival at 24 months was 93% with acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab (95% CI 87-96%), 87% with acalabrutinib monotherapy (81-92%), and 47% with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (39-55%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event across groups was neutropenia (53 [30%] of 178 patients in the acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab group, 17 [9%] of 179 patients in the acalabrutinib group, and 70 [41%] of 169 patients in the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group). All-grade infusion reactions were less frequent with acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab (24 [13%] of 178 patients) than obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (67 [40%] of 169 patients). Grade 3 or higher infections occurred in 37 (21%) patients given acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab, 25 (14%) patients given acalabrutinib monotherapy, and 14 (8%) patients given obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. Deaths occurred in eight (4%) patients given acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab, 12 (7%) patients given acalabrutinib, and 15 (9%) patients given obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. Acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab significantly improved progression-free survival over obinutuzumab-chlorambucil chemoimmunotherapy, providing a chemotherapy-free treatment option with an acceptable side-effect profile that was consistent with previous studies. These data support the use of acalabrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab or alone as a new treatment option for patients with treatment-naive symptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Acerta Pharma, a member of the AstraZeneca Group, and R35 CA198183 (to JCB).

MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6–12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3–7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37–0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Among previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 3-year progression-free survival was 76.5% with acalabrutinib–venetoclax, 83.1% with acalabrutinib–venetoclax–obinutuzumab, and 66.5% with chemoimmunotherapy.

Abstract Background A synergistic effect of combination therapy with favipiravir and oseltamivir has been reported in preclinical models of influenza. However, no data are available on the clinical effectiveness of combination therapy in severe influenza. Methods Data from 2 separate prospective studies of influenza adults were used to compare outcomes between combination and oseltamivir monotherapy. Outcomes included rate of clinical improvement (defined as a decrease of 2 categories on a 7-category ordinal scale) and viral RNA detectability over time. Subhazard ratios (sHRs) were estimated by the Fine and Gray model for competing risks. Results In total, 40 patients were treated with combination therapy and 128 with oseltamivir alone. Clinical improvement on day 14 in the combination group was higher than in the monotherapy group (62.5% vs 42.2%; P = .0247). The adjusted sHR for combination therapy was 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.30–3.26). The proportion of undetectable viral RNA at day 10 was higher in the combination group than the oseltamivir group (67.5% vs 21.9%; P < .01). No significant differences were observed in mortality or other outcomes. Conclusions Favipiravir and oseltamivir combination therapy may accelerate clinical recovery compared to oseltamivir monotherapy in severe influenza, and this strategy should be formally evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. No data are available on the clinical effectiveness of favipiravir and oseltamivir combination therapy in influenza. Comparing clinical outcomes between the combination therapy cohort (n = 40) and oseltamivir monotherapy cohort (n = 128), combination therapy may accelerate clinical recovery in critically ill patients.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin vs placebo and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with background metformin. Methods This randomised, double-blind, four-arm, parallel-group, Phase 3 study was conducted at 169 centres in 22 countries between April 2010 and August 2012. Participants ( N  = 1,284) with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 and ≤80 years who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA 1c ≥7.0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤10.5% [91 mmol/mol]) on metformin therapy received canagliflozin 100 mg or 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo ( n  = 368, 367, 366, 183, respectively) for a 26 week, placebo- and active-controlled period followed by a 26 week, active-controlled period (placebo group switched to sitagliptin [placebo/sitagliptin]) and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis set. Randomisation was performed using a computer-generated schedule; participants, study centres and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA 1c at week 26; secondary endpoints included changes in HbA 1c (week 52) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and systolic blood pressure (BP; weeks 26 and 52). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. Results At week 26, canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg reduced HbA 1c vs placebo (−0.79%, –0.94%, –0.17%, respectively; p  < 0.001). At week 52, canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg demonstrated non-inferiority, and canagliflozin 300 mg demonstrated statistical superiority, to sitagliptin in lowering HbA 1c (−0.73%, –0.88%,–0.73%, respectively); differences (95% CI) vs sitagliptin were 0% (−0.12, 0.12) and −0.15% (−0.27, –0.03), respectively. Canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg reduced body weight vs placebo (week 26: –3.7%, –4.2%, –1.2%, respectively; p  < 0.001) and sitagliptin (week 52: –3.8%, –4.2%, –1.3%, respectively; p  < 0.001). Both canagliflozin doses reduced FPG and systolic BP vs placebo (week 26) and sitagliptin (week 52) ( p  < 0.001). Overall AE and AE-related discontinuation rates were generally similar across groups, but higher with canagliflozin 100 mg. Genital mycotic infection and osmotic diuresis-related AE rates were higher with canagliflozin; few led to discontinuations. Hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with canagliflozin. Conclusions/interpretation Canagliflozin improved glycaemia and reduced body weight vs placebo (week 26) and sitagliptin (week 52) and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin. Clinical trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106677 Funding This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare, aggressive cancer for which few treatment options are available. Linsitinib (OSI-906) is a potent, oral small molecule inhibitor of both IGF-1R and the insulin receptor, which has shown acceptable tolerability and preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity. We assessed linsitinib against placebo to investigate efficacy in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma were recruited at clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) twice-daily 150 mg oral linsitinib or placebo via a web-based, centralised randomisation system and stratified according to previous systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for adrenocortical carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and use of one or more oral antihyperglycaemic therapy at randomisation. Allocation was concealed by blinded block size and permuted block randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, calculated from date of randomisation until death from any cause. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00924989. Between Dec 2, 2009, and July 11, 2011, 139 patients were enrolled, of whom 90 were assigned to linsitinib and 49 to placebo. The trial was unblinded on March 19, 2012, based on data monitoring committee recommendation due to the failure of linsitinib to increase either progression-free survival or overall survival. At database lock and based on 92 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between linsitinib and placebo (median 323 days [95% CI 256–507] vs 356 days [249–556]; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·61–1·44]; p=0·77). The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the linsitinib group were fatigue (three [3%] patients vs no patients in the placebo group), nausea (two [2%] vs none), and hyperglycaemia (two [2%] vs none). No adverse events in the linsitinib group were deemed to be treatment related; one death (due to sepsis and megacolon) in the placebo group was deemed to be treatment related. Linsitinib did not increase overall survival and so cannot be recommended as treatment for this general patient population. Further studies of IGF-1R and insulin receptor inhibitors, together with genetic profiling of responders, might pave the way toward individualised and improved therapeutic options in adrenocortical carcinoma. Astellas.

The substitution of bortezomib for vincristine in R-CHOP resulted in higher rates of complete response and nearly a doubling in progression-free survival among patients with advanced mantle-cell lymphoma not eligible for stem-cell transplantation. Mantle-cell lymphoma is an incurable, aggressive hematologic cancer with a poor prognosis (median survival, 4 to 5 years). 1 , 2 It comprises 5 to 6% of all non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, including approximately 5000 cases per year in the United States. 3 For previously untreated patients who are either ineligible or not considered for intensive chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation, R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is a standard of care 4 – 6 and produces complete response rates of up to 48%. However, progression-free survival is limited (median, 16.6 months). 7 The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma in . . .

High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment. Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6–81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2–69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9–72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7–36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33–0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis. To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting. US National Cancer Institute.

Panobinostat is a potent oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor that in preclinical studies has synergistic anti-myeloma activity when combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone. We aimed to compare panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with placebo, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. PANORAMA1 is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received between one and three previous treatment regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web-based and voice response system, stratified by number of previous treatment lines and by previous use of bortezomib, to receive 21 day cycles of placebo or panobinostat (20 mg; on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, orally), both in combination with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, 11, intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, orally). Patients, physicians, and the investigators who did the data analysis were masked to treatment allocation; crossover was not permitted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (in accordance with modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria and based on investigators' assessment) and was analysed by intention to treat. The study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01023308. 768 patients were enrolled between Jan 21, 2010, and Feb 29, 2012, with 387 randomly assigned to panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 381 to placebo, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 6·47 months (IQR 1·81–13·47) in the panobinostat group and 5·59 months (2·14–11·30) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the panobinostat group than in the placebo group (11·99 months [95% CI 10·33–12·94] vs 8·08 months [7·56–9·23]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·52–0·76; p<0·0001). Overall survival data are not yet mature, although at the time of this analysis, median overall survival was 33·64 months (95% CI 31·34–not estimable) for the panobinostat group and 30·39 months (26·87–not estimable) for the placebo group (HR 0·87, 95% CI 0·69–1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of patients achieving an overall response did not differ between treatment groups (235 [60·7%, 95% CI 55·7–65·6] for panobinostat vs 208 [54·6%, 49·4–59·7] for placebo; p=0·09); however, the proportion of patients with a complete or near complete response was significantly higher in the panobinostat group than in the placebo group (107 [27·6%, 95% CI 23·2–32·4] vs 60 [15·7%, 12·2–19·8]; p=0·00006). Minimal responses were noted in 23 (6%) patients in the panobinostat group and in 42 (11%) in the placebo group. Median duration of response (partial response or better) was 13·14 months (95% CI 11·76–14·92) in the panobinostat group and 10·87 months (9·23–11·76) in the placebo group, and median time to response (partial response or better) was 1·51 months (1·41–1·64) in the panobinostat group and 2·00 months (1·61–2·79) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 228 (60%) of 381 patients in the panobinostat group and 157 (42%) of 377 patients in the placebo group. Common grade 3–4 laboratory abnormalities and adverse events (irrespective of association with study drug) included thrombocytopenia (256 [67%] in the panobinostat group vs 118 [31%] in the placebo group), lymphopenia (202 [53%] vs 150 [40%]), diarrhoea (97 [26%] vs 30 [8%]), asthenia or fatigue (91 [24%] vs 45 [12%]), and peripheral neuropathy (67 [18%] vs 55 [15%]). Our results suggest that panobinostat could be a useful addition to the treatment armamentarium for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Longer follow up will be necessary to determine whether there is any effect on overall survival. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m 2 dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference −0·4%, 95% CI −14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9–16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1–15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5–11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6–10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1–80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1–85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.