Cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy for treating previously treated advanced endometrial cancer in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was recently approved for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with disease progression on or following prior treatment with a platinum­containing therapy in any setting, and who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation (KEYNOTE-775/Study-309; NCT03517449). The objective was to assess the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy from a Swedish healthcare perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime partitioned-survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed disease, death) was constructed. Chemotherapy was represented by paclitaxel or doxorubicin. Overall survival, progression-free survival, time on treatment, and utility data were obtained from KEYNOTE-775 (database lock: March 1, 2022). Costs (in 2020 Swedish Krona [SEK]) included drug acquisition and administration, health state, end of life, adverse event management, subsequent treatment, and societal (scenario analysis). Outcomes were calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and life-years. Model results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for all-comers, patients with proficient mismatch repair tumors, and deficient mismatch repair tumors. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment when compared with chemotherapy, with estimated deterministic and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 795,712 and 819,757 per QALY gained. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was associated with a large incremental QALY and life-year gain per person versus chemotherapy over the model time horizon (1.49 and 1.76). LIMITATIONS: Time-to-event data were incomplete and semiparametric and parametric curves were utilized for lifetime extrapolation. Willingness-to-pay thresholds, costs, and utility weights vary by country, which would vary the treatment's cost effectiveness in different countries. CONCLUSIONS: This partitioned survival analysis suggests that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is cost effective compared with chemotherapy in Sweden for women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma following previous systemic therapy. Results were robust to mismatch repair status and to changes in parameters/assumptions.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer Treated With Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Treatment of Physician's Choice.

PURPOSE: Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LEN+PEMBRO) demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in efficacy versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC) in the phase 3 Study 309/KEYNOTE-775. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive LEN+PEMBRO (n = 411; LEN 20 mg/day; PEMBRO 200 mg Q3W) or TPC (n = 416; doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 [weekly, 3 weeks on/1 week off]). Impact of treatment on HRQoL assessed by the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was a secondary objective; other scales of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-Endometrial, 24 questions (EORTC QLQ-EN24), and EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) were exploratory objectives. HRQoL was assessed on day 1 of each cycle. Completion/compliance, change from baseline, time to first and definitive deterioration were assessed. No multiplicity adjustments were applied for HRQoL endpoints. RESULTS: The latest timepoint at which the predefined rates of completion (≥60%) and compliance (≥80%) were met was week 12. HRQoL at week 12 between treatment groups was generally similar. Time to first deterioration symptom scales favoured LEN+PEMBRO for QLQ-C30 dyspnoea, and QLQ-EN24 for poor body image, tingling/numbness, and hair loss; and TPC was favoured for QLQ-C30 pain, appetite loss, and diarrhoea, and QLQ-EN24 muscular pain. While the QLQ-C30 physical functional scale favoured TPC, other functional scales were generally similar between arms. Time to definitive deterioration favoured LEN+PEMBRO on most scales. CONCLUSION: HRQoL data from Study 309/KEYNOTE-775, with previously published efficacy and safety results, indicate that LEN+PEMBRO has an overall favourable benefit/risk profile versus TPC for the treatment of patients with aEC. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03517449.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer in the United States.

AIMS: Approximately, 4% of Stage IV colorectal cancers (CRC) are microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors. Patients with metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC receiving conventional therapies experience lower response rates and tend to have worse overall survival compared with patients with microsatellite stable (MSS)/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) CRC. Pembrolizumab received FDA approval in 2020 for first-line treatment of Stage IV MSI-H/dMMR CRC based on significantly longer progression-free survival versus standard of care (SoC, 5-fluorouracil-based therapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. SoC as per KEYNOTE-177 and other first-line treatments for MSI-H/dMMR CRC from a US healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A three-health-state partitioned-survival model was built using progression-free and overall survival data from KEYNOTE-177 and a network meta-analysis. Utilities were derived from KEYNOTE-177 EQ-5D-3L data. Drug acquisition, administration, AE, surgery, monitoring, subsequent treatment, and terminal care costs were included. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including utilizing a state-transition model structure and adopting a societal perspective. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, pembrolizumab and SoC were associated with total QALYs of 4.85 and 3.23, and total costs of $381,735 and $370,465, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $6,984 per QALY. QALY gains were mainly driven by extended survival with pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab incurred higher drug acquisition costs relative to SoC but was cost-saving in terms of drug administration, AE, monitoring, subsequent treatment, and terminal care. Pembrolizumab dominated FOLFOX + panitumumab, FOLFOXIRI, and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab, and presented ICERs of $35,220 and $276 against XELOX and XELOX + bevacizumab. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective for the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC in the US at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.Key messagesPembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer in the United States at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Compared with the current standard of care for these patients, pembrolizumab:Increases survival due to delaying and preventing progression;Increases QALYs due to longer survival, improvement in HRQoL in the progression-free health state, and fewer Grade 3+ adverse events;Reduces costs associated with administering treatment, managing adverse events, monitoring post-progression disease, providing subsequent treatment, and providing terminal care; andReduces indirect health care costs when taking a societal perspective due to productivity gains from delaying and preventing progression and death, less frequent treatment administration and less frequent Grade 3+ adverse events.

Incidence of Hip and Subtrochanteric/Femoral Shaft Fractures in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the Phase 3 Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial.

We prospectively assessed, with predefined criteria, the location and rates of all femur fractures (hip, subtrochanteric/femoral shaft [ST/FS], including atypical [AFF] and distal fractures) in women at increased fracture risk during treatment with the cathepsin K inhibitor, odanacatib (ODN), or placebo over 5 years in the Long-Term ODN Fracture Trial (LOFT and LOFT Extension [NCT00529373, EudraCT 2007-002693-66]). ODN was an investigational antiresorptive agent previously in development as an osteoporosis treatment that, unlike bisphosphonates, reduces bone formation only transiently. Women aged ≥65 years with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤-2.5 at the total hip (TH) or femoral neck (FN) or with a radiographic vertebral fracture and T-scores ≤-1.5 at the TH or FN were randomized (1:1) to receive ODN 50 mg/week or placebo. All patients received vitamin D3 (5600 IU/week) and calcium (total 1200 mg/d); the analysis included 16,071 women. Rates of all adjudicated low-energy femoral fractures were 0.38 versus 0.58/100 patient-years for ODN and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.82; nominal p < .001), and for low-energy hip fractures were 0.29 versus 0.56/100 patient-years, respectively (HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.40-0.67; p < .001). The cumulative incidence of combined hip and ST/FS or hip fractures alone in the ODN group was consistently lower than in the placebo group (1.93% versus 3.11% for combined fractures and 1.53% versus 3.03% for hip fractures at 5 years, respectively). However, low-energy ST/FS fractures were more frequent in ODN-treated women than in placebo-treated women (24 versus 6, respectively). Among these, 12 fractures were adjudicated as AFF in 10 patients treated with ODN (0.03/100 patient-years) compared with none in the 6 placebo-treated women (estimated difference 0.03; 95% CI 0.02-0.06). These results provide insight into possible pathogeneses of AFF, suggesting that the current criteria for diagnosing these fractures may need to be reconsidered. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)..

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study.

BACKGROUND: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051). INTERPRETATION: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy in children with heterozygous familial or nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy in young children with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia (nonFH). STUDY DESIGN: One hundred thirty-eight children 6-10 years of age with diagnosed HeFH or clinically important nonFH (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] ≥ 160 mg/dL [4.1 mmol/L]) were enrolled into a multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Following screening/drug washout and a 5-week single-blind placebo-run-in with diet stabilization, subjects were randomized 2:1 to daily ezetimibe 10 mg (n = 93) or placebo (n = 45) for 12 weeks. Lipid-altering efficacy and safety were assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: Overall, mean age was 8.3 years, 57% were girls, 80% were white, mean baseline LDL-C was 228 mg/dL (5.9 mmol/L), and 91% had HeFH. After 12 weeks, ezetimibe significantly reduced LDL-C by 27% after adjustment for placebo (P < .001) and produced significant reductions in total cholesterol (21%), nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (26%), and apolipoprotein B (20%) (P < .001 for all). LDL-C lowering response in sex, race, baseline lipids, and HeFH/nonFH subgroups was generally consistent with overall study results. Ezetimibe was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to studies in older children, adolescents, and adults. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe monotherapy produced clinically relevant reductions in LDL-C and other key lipid variables in young children with primary HeFH or clinically important nonFH, with a favorable safety/tolerability profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00867165.

A randomized, open-label, dose-response study of losartan in hypertensive children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Once-daily losartan reduces BP in a dose-dependent manner and is well tolerated in hypertensive children aged 6-16 years. This study assessed the dose-response relationship, safety, and tolerability of losartan in hypertensive children aged 6 months to 6 years. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a 12-week, randomized, open-label, dose-ranging study, with a 2-year extension. Patients were randomized to losartan at the following dosages: 0.1 mg/kg per day (low), 0.3 mg/kg per day (medium), or 0.7 mg/kg per day (high). Losartan was titrated to the next dose level (to a 1.4 mg/kg per day maximum dosage, not exceeding 100 mg/d, which was not one of the three original doses offered at randomization) at weeks 3, 6, and 9 for patients who did not attain their goal BP and were not taking the highest dose. Dose response was evaluated by analyzing the slope of change in sitting systolic BP (SBP; primary end point) and diastolic BP (DBP; secondary end point) after 3 weeks compared with baseline. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients randomized, 99 were included in the analysis (low dose, n=32; medium dose, n=34; and high dose, n=33). Mean sitting BP decreased from baseline in the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups by 7.3, 7.6, and 6.7 mmHg, respectively, for SBP and 8.2, 5.1, and 6.7 mmHg, respectively, for DBP after 3 weeks. No dose-response relationship was established by the slope analysis on SBP (P=0.75) or DBP (P=0.64). The BP-lowering effect was observed throughout the 2-year extension. The incidence of AEs was low and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive children aged 6 months to 6 years treated with losartan 0.1-0.7 mg/kg per day had clinically significant decreases from baseline in SBP and DBP, yet no dose-response relationship was evident. Losartan, at a dosage up to 1.4 mg/kg per day, was well tolerated.

Consistency of effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in obese and non-obese diabetic subjects.

PURPOSE: This post hoc analysis assessed switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subgroups of obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) diabetic subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of adults 18-79 years with cardiovascular disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. Percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated. RESULTS: In obese subjects (n = 466), percent changes in LDL-C and most other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin. In non-obese subjects (n = 342), percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, Apo B and Apo A-I were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin; and treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in greater changes in triglycerides vs rosuvastatin and HDL-C vs doubling the baseline statin dose. The safety profiles were generally similar. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of baseline obesity status, switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and Apo B vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg.

A comparison of efficacy and safety of an ezetimibe/simvastatin combination compared with other intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease.

The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZ/S) 10/20 mg versus doubling the run-in statin dose (to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subjects with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes was assessed. Endpoints included percentage change in LDL-C and percentage of patients achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C occurred when switching to EZ/S versus statin doubling in the overall population and in subjects treated with simvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg (all p < 0.001). The LDL-C reduction was numerically greater when switching to EZ/S versus switching to rosuvastatin (p = 0.060). Significantly more subjects reached LDL-C <70 mg/dL with EZ/S (54.5%) versus statin doubling (27.0%) or rosuvastatin (42.5%) in the overall population (all p < 0.001) and within each stratum (all p < 0.001). Switching to EZ/S provided significantly greater reductions in LDL-C versus statin doubling and significantly greater achievement of LDL-C targets versus statin doubling or switching to rosuvastatin.

Losartan and enalapril are comparable in reducing proteinuria in children with Alport syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A previous subgroup analysis of a 12-week, double-blind study demonstrated that losartan significantly lowered proteinuria versus placebo and amlodipine and was well tolerated in children (1-17 years old) with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome. The present subgroup analysis of the open-label, extension phase of this study assessed the long-term efficacy and tolerability of losartan versus enalapril. METHODS: Patients who had completed the double-blind study were re-randomized to losartan or enalapril and followed for proteinuria and renal function for up to 3 years. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with Alport syndrome were randomized to losartan (0.44-2.23 mg/kg/day; n = 15) or enalapril (0.07-0.72 mg/kg/day; n = 12). The least-squares (LS) mean percent change from week 12 in urinary protein to creatinine ratio (UPr/Cr was +1.1 % in the losartan group versus a further 13.9 % reduction in the enalapril group (GMR [95 % CI] = 1.2 [0.7, 2.0]); the LS mean change from week 12 in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was -6.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the losartan group versus -9.1 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the enalapril group. The adverse event incidence was low and comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In children with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome, losartan maintained proteinuria reduction, and enalapril produced a further proteinuria reduction over the 3-year study period. Both agents were generally well tolerated.

A multi-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study to evaluate the effects of two different doses of losartan on morbidity and mortality in Chinese patients with symptomatic heart failure intolerant of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor treatment.

BACKGROUND: There have been no mortality/morbidity endpoint studies with losartan in Chinese heart failure patients. The objective was to evaluate the effects of high-dose vs. low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in Chinese subjects with heart failure. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the Heart failure Endpoint evaluation of Angiotensin II Antagonist losartan (HEAAL) trial (n = 545). Chinese adults with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-IV) intolerant of treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were randomized to losartan 150 mg or 50 mg daily. The primary endpoint was the composite event rate of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 4.8 years. Baseline characteristics were generally similar to the overall HEAAL cohort. Overall, 120 (44.1%) subjects in the losartan 150 mg group and 137 (50.2%) subjects in the losartan 50 mg group died (any cause) or were hospitalized for heart failure (hazard ratio (OR) 0.807, 95%CI 0.631 - 1.031). There were no notable differences between treatment groups in the proportion of subjects with adverse experiences. CONCLUSION: The results of this post hoc analysis in Chinese subjects, although not powered to show significance, were generally consistent with the main study results, which demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of all cause death or hospitalization for heart failure with daily losartan 150 mg vs. losartan 50 mg in subjects with symptomatic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors, supporting the use of the higher dose for optimum clinical benefit.

Losartan and enalapril are comparable in reducing proteinuria in children.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type I receptor blockers delay progression of chronic kidney disease and have antiproteinuric effects beyond their effects on blood pressure. They are routinely used in adults; however, their efficacy and safety in children, in whom the causes of chronic kidney disease are significantly different relative to adults, is uncertain. Here we assessed an open-label extension of a previous 3-month blinded trial, in which the efficacy and tolerability of losartan was compared to placebo or amlodipine in 306 normotensive and hypertensive children with proteinuria. In this study, 268 children were re-randomized to losartan or enalapril and followed until 100 patients completed 3 years of follow-up for proteinuria and renal function. The least squares percent mean reduction from baseline in the urinary protein/creatinine ratio was 30.01% for losartan and 40.45% for enalapril. The least squares mean change from baseline in eGFR was 3.3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for losartan and 7.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for enalapril. The incidence of specific adverse events such as hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction was low and similar in both groups. Both were generally well tolerated and, overall, fewer drug-related adverse events occurred with losartan than with enalapril. Thus, in children with proteinuria, losartan and enalapril significantly reduced proteinuria without any appreciable changes in eGFR, effects that were maintained throughout the study. Both losartan and enalapril were generally well tolerated.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in high cardiovascular risk patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: A considerable number of patients with severely elevated LDL-C do not achieve recommended treatment targets, despite treatment with statins. Adults at high cardiovascular risk with hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C ≥ 2.59 and ≤ 4.14 mmol/L (N = 250), pretreated with atorvastatin 20 mg were randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was assessed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis method with terms for treatment, time, time-by-treatment interaction, stratum, and time-by-stratum interaction. Percentage of subjects achieving LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L, < 2.00 mmol/L, or < 2.59 mmol/L was assessed using a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and stratum. Tolerability was assessed. RESULTS: Switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in significantly greater changes in LDL-C (-26.81% vs.-11.81%), total cholesterol (-15.97% vs.-7.73%), non-HDL-C (-22.50% vs.-10.88%), Apo B (-17.23% vs.-9.53%), and Apo A-I (2.56% vs.-2.69%) vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p ≤ 0.002), but not HDL-C, triglycerides, or hs-CRP. Significantly more subjects achieved LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L (29% vs. 5%), < 2.00 mmol/L (38% vs. 9%) or < 2.59 mmol/L (69% vs. 41%) after switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p < 0.001). The overall safety profile appeared generally comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high cardiovascular risk subjects with hypercholesterolemia already treated with atorvastatin 20 mg but not at LDL-C < 2.59 mmol/L, switching to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg provided significantly greater LDL-C lowering and greater achievement of LDL-C targets compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00782184.

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe added on to rosuvastatin 5 or 10 mg versus up-titration of rosuvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the ACTE Study).

The present multicenter, 6-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ezetimibe (10 mg) added to stable rosuvastatin therapy versus up-titration of rosuvastatin from 5 to 10 mg or from 10 to 20 mg. The study population included 440 subjects at moderately high/high risk of coronary heart disease with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels higher than the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations (<100 mg/dl for moderately high/high-risk subjects without atherosclerotic vascular disease or <70 mg/dl for high-risk subjects with atherosclerotic vascular disease). Pooled data demonstrated that ezetimibe added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 21%. In contrast, doubling rosuvastatin to 10 mg or 20 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 5.7% (between-group difference of 15.2%, p <0.001). Individually, ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 5 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 10 mg (12.3% difference, p <0.001), and ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 20 mg (17.5% difference, p <0.001). Compared to rosuvastatin up-titration, ezetimibe add-on achieved significantly greater attainment of LDL cholesterol levels of <70 or <100 mg/dl (59.4% vs 30.9%, p <0.001), and <70 mg/dl in all subjects (43.8% vs 17.5%, p <0.001); produced significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001); and resulted in similar effects on other lipid parameters. Adverse experiences were generally comparable among the groups. In conclusion, compared to up-titration doubling of the rosuvastatin dose, ezetimibe 10 mg added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg produced greater improvements in many lipid parameters and achieved greater attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommended LDL cholesterol targets in subjects with elevated LDL cholesterol and at moderately high/high coronary heart disease risk.

Long-term tolerability of telcagepant for acute treatment of migraine in a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term tolerability of telcagepant for acute treatment of intermittent migraine attacks. Background.- Telcagepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Migraine patients were randomized 2:1 to double-blind treatment with telcagepant 280/300 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg for an acute mild, moderate, or severe migraine. Patients could administer a second dose within 2-24 hours for nonresponse or migraine recurrence. Patients could treat up to 8 attacks per month for up to 18 months. Safety assessments included spontaneous reports of adverse events and collection of vital signs, electrocardiograms, and laboratory assessments. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with ≥ 1 triptan-related adverse events in the 14-day period post dose. RESULTS: Of 1068 patients randomized, 641 (90%) patients treated ≥ 1 attack with telcagepant and 313 (88%) treated ≥ 1 attack with rizatriptan. A total of 19,820 attacks were treated with telcagepant (mean per patient = 31) and 10,981 with rizatriptan (mean per patient = 35). Fewer triptan-related adverse events (difference: -6.2%; 95% CI -10.4, -2.6; P < .001) and drug-related adverse events (difference: -15.6%; 95% CI -22.2, -9.0) were reported for telcagepant vs rizatriptan. The most common adverse events appeared to have generally similar incidence proportions between the treatment groups. Those with an incidence > 5% in the telcagepant group were dry mouth (9.7%, rizatriptan = 13.7%), somnolence (9.2%, rizatriptan = 16.6%), dizziness (8.9%, rizatriptan = 10.2%), and nausea (9.0%, rizatriptan = 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Telcagepant was generally well tolerated when administered for the acute intermittent treatment of migraine for up to 18 months. The incidences of triptan-related and drug-related adverse events favored telcagepant over rizatriptan.

Onset and duration of attenuation of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children by single-dose of montelukast.

Single-dose montelukast attenuates exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in adults within 2 hours postdose and lasting through 24 hours. This study evaluated the onset and duration of EIB attenuation in children after a single dose of montelukast. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study was performed. Patients (n = 66) aged 4-14 years, with preexercise forced expiratory volume in 1 second of (FEV(1)) ≥70% predicted and maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) of ≥20% at two screening exercise challenges were eligible. Patients were to receive single-dose montelukast (4 or 5 mg) or placebo before performing standardized exercise challenges at 2 and 24 hours postdose. A 3- to-7-day washout separated the two crossover periods. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) after exercise challenge 2 hours postdose. Secondary end points included maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) after the 24-hour postdose challenge; each of the following at 2 and 24 hours postdose-maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) categorized as <10%, 10-20%, or >20%; area under the curve (AUC) during 60 minutes postchallenge; time to recovery of FEV(1) to within 5% of preexercise baseline; and need for rescue medication. The mean maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) after the 2-hour postdose exercise challenge was significantly attenuated after single-dose montelukast compared with placebo (15.35% versus 20.00%; p = 0.020). Montelukast was also significantly more effective than placebo for maximum percentage fall after the 24-hour challenge (12.92% versus 17.25%; p = 0.005), the categorized maximum percent fall in FEV(1) at 2 hours (p = 0.034), and AUC at 2 hours (p = 0.022) and 24 hours (p = 0.013). Single-dose montelukast provided rapid and sustained EIB attenuation in children. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00534976.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast in children with acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of patients require hospitalization for acute asthma despite standard therapy in the emergency department. In adults, intravenous montelukast added to standard therapy significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and reduced hospital admissions compared with standard therapy alone. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous montelukast added to standard therapy in children with acute asthma. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of children aged 6 to 14 years conducted from August 25, 2005 to March 17, 2008. Patients with an FEV1 of 75% or less of the predicted value after up to 120 minutes of standard therapy (e.g., oxygen, albuterol, inhaled anticholinergics, and systemic oral corticosteroids) were randomized to intravenous montelukast, 5.25 mg (n=145), or placebo (n=131) added to standard therapy. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change in FEV1 during 60 minutes (deltaFEV1[0-60 min]). Secondary end points included the percentage of patients in whom treatment failed (patients who required hospitalization or for whom a decision to discharge was not reached within 2 hours after drug administration) and the change from baseline in modified pulmonary index score after 60 minutes of treatment. RESULTS: Montelukast was not significantly more effective than placebo for deltaFEV1[0-60 min] when added to standard therapy (0.08 vs. 0.07 L; least squares mean, 0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.08; P = .78). No significant differences were found in the percentages of patients in whom treatment failed or the modified pulmonary index score after 60 minutes. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of children with acute asthma, intravenous montelukast was not significantly better than placebo in improving FEV1, symptoms, or overall hospital course.

Upper gastrointestinal tolerability of alendronate sodium monohydrate 10 mg once daily in postmenopausal women: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: The dissolution profiles of generic oral bisphosphonate alendronate (ALN) sodium for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis differ by formulation, suggesting potential differences in the risk for upper gastrointestinal (GI) irritation. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the tolerability profile of ALN monohydrate with that of placebo, with a focus on upper GI irritation, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled estimation study enrolled postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive ALN monohydrate 10 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study and up to 14 days after administration of the final dose. Primary end points were the proportions of patients with upper GI adverse events (AEs); upper GI AEs that were rated as serious or study drug related or that led to study discontinuation; and esophageal AEs. Between-treatment differences and associated 95% CIs were assessed using the Wilson score method. RESULTS: Of 438 patients who were randomized, 367 (mean age, 65.5 years; history of osteoporotic fracture, 6.8%; ALN monohydrate, 237; placebo, 130) completed the study. The proportion of patients with a history of upper GI disorders at baseline was numerically greater in the ALN monohydrate group than in the placebo group (117 [40.2%] and 45 [30.6%], respectively). The proportions of patients with active baseline upper GI disease were 83 (28.5%) and 30 (20.4%) in the ALN monohydrate and placebo groups, respectively. The proportions of patients who experienced an upper GI AE during the study period were 66 (22.7%) and 30 (20.4%) (95% CI, -6.2 to 10.0). The proportions of patients with upper GI AEs that were rated as serious or study drug related or that led to study discontinuation were 20.3% and 12.9% (95% CI, -0.3% to 14.1%). Three serious AEs in the active-treatment group (breast cancer, 2; wrist fracture, 1) were not considered related to the study drug, nor was the 1 serious AE in the placebo group (wrist fracture). One patient (ALN monohydrate) had an esophageal AE (nonserious spasm). Approximately 8% of patients who received ALN monohydrate reported dyspepsia, compared with none who received placebo. Within each treatment group, the rates of upper GI AEs were numerically higher in patients with a history of upper GI disease. CONCLUSIONS: In these postmenopausal women who received ALN monohydrate or placebo, upper GI AEs were common (20.4%-22.7%). The proportion of patients who experienced upper GI AEs considered drug related or that led to discontinuation was appar- ently greater with ALN monohydrate compared with placebo.

Effectiveness of open-label losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in Asian patients with hypertension not controlled with ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combinations have not been adequately studied in Asians. In this open-label, 12-week study in seven Asian areas, patients on monotherapy with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) but not at blood pressure (BP) goal (sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) <90 mm Hg in non-diabetics and <80 mm Hg in diabetics) were switched to losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. At 4 and 8 weeks, the therapy for patients not at goal BP was titrated to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. Data analysis included 430 patients with mean (s.d.) age 53.0 (10.1) years and 51.9% of the female gender. After 8 weeks (primary end point; titration up to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg), 73.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 69.0-77.6) of patients reached BP goal; 63.4 and 78.1% of patients reached BP goal at 4 weeks (titration up to losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg) and at 12 weeks (titration up to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg). The mean changes from baseline (95% CI) in sitting systolic BP and SiDBP at 8 weeks were -16.7 (-18.0 to -15.4) mm Hg and -12.1 (-12.9 to -11.4) mm Hg, respectively. Clinical and laboratory adverse experiences (AEs) were reported in 27.5 and 21.0% of patients, respectively. Nine patients were discontinued because of drug-related clinical AEs. Switching Asian patients currently not at BP goal with ARB or ACEI monotherapy to a losartan/HCTZ combination achieved BP goal in the majority of patients. Losartan/HCTZ combinations were generally well tolerated.

Effect of co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment on LDL-C goal attainment in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment was more effective than placebo plus on-going simvastatin in achieving an LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Men and women (age > or = 18 years) with documented CHD and on a stable dose of simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg for at least 6 weeks were recruited for this study. After a 4-week simvastatin 10 or 20 mg plus placebo and diet run-in period, patients were eligible for randomization if LDL-C > 2.60 and < or = 4.20 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or = 4.00 mmol/l. Eligible patients were randomized to a double-blind comparative study with ezetimibe 10 mg co-administered with on-going simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=181) versus placebo to match ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=191) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, mean LDL-C was comparable between the ezetimibe (3.14 mmol/l) and placebo (3.19 mmol/l) groups. With the addition of ezetimibe or placebo to on-going simvastatin therapy, the percentage of patients achieving the LDL-C goal of < or = 2.60 mmol/l after 6 weeks of treatment was significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater in the ezetimibe group (74.3%) than in the placebo group (16.7%). The addition of ezetimibe to on-going simvastatin treatment also resulted in a significantly (p < or = 0.001) larger mean percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline (25.2%) compared with placebo (0.9%). Ezetimibe was generally well tolerated compared to placebo when added to on-going simvastatin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin 10 or 20 mg treatment allowed more hypercholesterolemic patients with CHD to reach the LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l.