Entospletinib with decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia with mutant TP53 or complex karyotype: A phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have tumor protein p53 (TP53) mutations or a complex karyotype have a poor prognosis, and hypomethylating agents are often used. The authors evaluated the efficacy of entospletinib, an oral inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase, combined with decitabine in this patient population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03013998) using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients aged 60 years or older who had newly diagnosed AML with mutations in TP53 with or without a complex karyotype (cohort A; n = 45) or had a complex karyotype without TP53 mutation (cohort B; n = 13) received entospletinib 400 mg twice daily with decitabine 20 mg/m2 on days 1-10 every 28 days for up to three induction cycles, followed by up to 11 consolidation cycles, in which decitabine was reduced to days 1-5. Entospletinib maintenance was given for up to 2 years. The primary end point was complete remission (CR) and CR with hematologic improvement by up to six cycles of therapy. RESULTS: The composite CR rates for cohorts A and B were 13.3% (95% confidence interval, 5.1%-26.8%) and 30.8% (95% confidence interval, 9.1%-61.4%), respectively. The median duration of response was 7.6 and 8.2 months, respectively, and the median overall survival was 6.5 and 11.5 months, respectively. The study was stopped because the futility boundary was crossed in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of entospletinib and decitabine demonstrated activity and was acceptably tolerated in this patient population; however, the CR rates were low, and overall survival was short. Novel treatment strategies for older patients with TP53 mutations and complex karyotype remain an urgent need.

Design, synthesis and in vitro cell-based evaluation of the anti-cancer activities of hispolon analogs.

Phytochemicals play an important role in cancer therapy. Hispolon and 26 of its analogs (9 known and 17 new) were synthesized and evaluated for their antiproliferative activities in a panel of six independent human cancer cell lines using the in vitro cell-based MTT assay. Among the hispolon analogs tested, compound VA-2, the most potent overall, produced its most significant effect in the colon cancer cell lines HCT-116 (IC50 1.4 ± 1.3 µM) and S1 (IC50 1.8 ± 0.9 µM) compared to its activity in the normal HEK293/pcDNA3.1 cell line (IC50 15.8±3.7 µM; p<0.01 for each comparison). Based on our results, VA-2 was about 9- to 11-times more potent in colon cancer cells and 2- to 3-times more potent in prostate cancer cells compared to HEK293/pcDNA3.1 cells. Morphological analysis of VA-2 showed significant reduction of cell number, while the cells' sizes were also markedly increased and were obvious at 68 h of treatment with 1 µM in HCT-116 (colon) and PC-3 (prostate) cancer cells. A known analog, compound VA-4, prepared by simple modifications on the aromatic functional groups of hispolon, inhibited prostate and colon cancer cell lines with IC50 values <10 µM. In addition, hispolon isoxazole and pyrazole analogs, VA-7 and VA-15 (known), respectively, have shown significant activity with the mean ICv values in the range 3.3-10.7 µM in all the cancer cell lines tested. Activity varied among the analogs in which aromatic functional groups and ß-diketone functional groups are modified. But the activity of analogs VA-16 to VA-27 was completely lost when the side chain double-bond was hydrogenated indicating the crucial role of this functionality for anticancer activity. Furthermore, many of the compounds synthesized were not substrates for the ABCB1-transporter, the most common cause of multidrug resistance in anti-cancer drugs, suggesting they may be more effective anticancer agents.

Real-world genomic testing and treatment patterns of newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia patients within a comprehensive health system.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the frequency of genomic testing and treatment patterns by age category in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated in both academic- and community-based health systems within a single Midwestern State. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Indiana University Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and two local cancer registries, of 629 patients aged ≥18 years with ND AML during 2011-2018. Primary outcome variables were, proportion of patients with genomic analysis and frequency of mutations. Chemotherapy was categorized as "standard induction" or "other chemotherapy"/targeted therapy, and hypomethylating agents. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of ND AML patients between 2011 and 2018 had evidence of a genomic sequencing report with a demonstrated increase to 37% since 2016. Genomic testing was more likely performed in patients: aged ≤60 years than >60 years (45% vs. 30%; p = 0.03), treated in academic versus community hospitals (44% vs. 26%; p = 0.01), and in chemotherapy recipients than non-therapy recipients (46% vs. 19%; p < 0.001). Most common mutations were ASXL1, NPM1, and FLT3. Patients ≥75 years had highest proportion (46%) of multiple (≥3) mutations. Overall, 31.2% of patients with AML did not receive any therapy for their disease. This subgroup was older than chemotherapy recipients (mean age: 71.4 vs. 55.7 years, p < 0.001), and was highest (66.2%) in patients ≥75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the unmet medical need to increase access to genomic testing to afford treatment options, particularly to older AML patients in the real-world setting, in this new era of targeted therapies.

Tramadol hydrochloride extended-release once-daily in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip: a double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial.

This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial evaluated tramadol ER (extended-release tramadol) in the management of osteoarthritis pain. Adults with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and baseline pain intensity of ≥40 on a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = extreme pain) received once-daily tramadol ER 100 mg (n = 201), 200 mg (n = 199), or 300 mg (n = 199), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 202; to test model sensitivity), or placebo (n = 200). Coprimary efficacy variables were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, WOMAC physical function subscale, and patient global assessment of disease activity. Tramadol ER 300 mg significantly improved patient global assessment scores compared with placebo (P ≤ 0.05), but not the other 2 coprimary efficacy variables. Tramadol ER 200 and 100 mg were not significantly different from placebo for the coprimary efficacy variables. Daily diary arthritis pain intensity scores improved significantly for tramadol ER 300 and 200 mg compared with placebo. WOMAC joint stiffness subscale, physician's global assessment, arthritis pain intensity in index and nonindex joints, and overall sleep quality scores improved significantly for tramadol ER 300 mg compared with placebo. Significant differences in efficacy between celecoxib and placebo validated the model sensitivity. Adverse events occurred more frequently with tramadol ER than placebo in the gastrointestinal (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) and central nervous (dizziness, headache) systems. In this study, tramadol ER 300 mg was effective in the management of moderate to severe painful osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. A large, increasing placebo response during the study may have contributed to the lack of statistical separation between tramadol ER 200 or 100 mg and placebo.

Streamlined Operational Approaches and Use of e-Technologies in Clinical Trials: Beat Acute Myeloid Leukemia Master Trial.

Advances in genomic technologies and an increased understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of cancer have resulted in development of new effective, mutation-targeted therapies. In turn, these informed the development of Master Trial designs to test these therapies. The Beat Acute Myeloid Leukemia (BAML) Master Trial (Sponsor: The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society) tests several targeted therapies in patients aged ≥ 60 years with AML based on genomic profiling obtained within 7 days of study enrollment. We hypothesized that integrating operational strategies with new electronic technologies (e-technologies) might streamline the conduct and management of this Master Trial. BAML's 5 core operational strategies revolve around the guiding principle of "patients first." The e-technology platforms employed in BAML include: Clinical Oversight Platform: a central collaborative tool; e-Protocol/e-Source Upload/Electronic Data Capture Platform: digitizes the protocol, allows remote data monitoring, and collects/exports data in Study Data Tabulation Model format; and Data Review Platform: ingests data from different sources for clinical response and safety data reviews. The operational approaches, e-technologies and sponsor/contract research organization's (CRO) expertise together allow: the complexity and size of the BAML Master Trial to be better managed; near real-time study data oversight; better collaboration, communication and training; improved data collection, enhanced transmission and accessibility; data integration, review and generation of reports; while maintaining data privacy, and compliance. Initial e-technology challenges were overcome through training, learning, discipline and adjustment. In conclusion, to successfully manage Master Trials, significant time should be spent re-evaluating, improving and developing new operational approaches.Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03013998. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03013998 .

Extended-release tramadol in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tramadol extended-release (tramadol ER) tablets once daily in subjects with osteoarthritis pain. METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial included 1020 adults with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and baseline pain intensity >or= 40 on a 100-mm pain visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = extreme pain). Subjects took placebo or were titrated to a target dose of tramadol ER 100, 200, 300, or 400 mg once daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The co-primary efficacy variables were pain and physical function subscales of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and subject global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: Mean changes in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales were significantly different between tramadol ER and placebo, overall (p

Efficacy and safety of a once-daily graded-release diltiazem formulation dosed at bedtime compared to placebo and to morning dosing in chronic stable angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a once-daily graded-release diltiazem hydrochloride (GRD) formulation dosed at 10 PM in doses of 180, 360, and 420 mg were compared with placebo and with GRD 360 mg dosed once daily at 8 AM in patients (n = 311) with chronic stable angina pectoris. METHODS: This was a 3-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Standard Bruce protocol treadmill stress test was performed at baseline and end point between 6 and 8 PM (trough for evening doses) and between 7 and 11 AM (trough for morning doses). RESULTS: All GRD evening doses showed a significant (P < or = .0201) increase in total duration of exercise at trough and a greater significant increase (P < or = .0002) at peak, compared with placebo. The GRD 360-mg evening dose showed the greatest increase at trough. In contrast, GRD 360-mg morning dose showed an increase in total duration of exercise at trough that was not significantly different (P = .0555) from placebo AM. GRD 360-mg evening dose showed a 4-fold placebo-adjusted improvement compared with GRD 360-mg morning dose between 7 and 11 AM. Significant increases (P < or = .0240) in time to onset of angina were obtained for all evening doses at trough and peak. All GRD doses were well tolerated, and incidence of adverse events for all GRD groups combined was less than that for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Bedtime GRD significantly increases exercise tolerance in patients with angina pectoris over the 24-hour dosing interval. A greater 4-fold placebo-adjusted improvement occurred between 7 and 11 AM compared with the same morning dose, coinciding with the period of increased cardiovascular risk. GRD was safe and well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a chronotherapeutic, graded-release diltiazem HCl extended-release (GRD) 120-, 240-, 360- and 540-mg dose administered once-daily at bedtime (10 PM) were evaluated in a 7-week randomized, double-blind comparison to placebo and to GRD 360 mg administered once-daily at 8 AM in 478 patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. METHODS: We assessed the change from baseline to end point in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 6 PM to 10 PM and in mean DBP from 6 AM to 12 noon between GRD 360 mg PM and GRD 360 mg AM, measured by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: Bedtime doses of GRD showed dose-related mean reductions in trough DBP that were significant for GRD doses of 240 mg and higher. Bedtime GRD 360 mg was associated with a significantly greater reduction in mean DBP between 6 AM and 12 noon compared to morning GRD 360 mg with a least squares mean for treatment difference of -3.3 mm Hg (P =.0004). Similar dose-related and significant reductions in systolic BP (SBP) and heart rate (HR) were obtained. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) for all GRD groups (44.5%) was less than that obtained for the placebo group (49.3%). The 540-mg group showed an incidence of AEs (43.5%) similar to that observed for the 240-mg group (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The GRD dose-dependently significantly reduces BP and HR over the 24-h interval after once-daily bedtime dosing. Further greater reductions were obtained between 6 AM and 12 noon, when circadian BP is highest, compared to morning administration of the same dose. The 540-mg GRD was safe, well tolerated, and offers further therapeutic option for patients with severe hypertension who required additional BP control.

Antihypertensive efficacy of night-time graded-release diltiazem versus morning amlodipine in African Americans.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a once daily night-time (10 pm) graded-release diltiazem (GRD) on early morning blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and rate-pressure product (RPP) were compared with the effect of morning (8 am) amlodipine in 262 African American individuals with hypertension. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-to-effect trial evaluated changes from baseline in BP, HR, and RPP (HR x systolic BP) by ambulatory BP monitoring during the first 4 h after awakening (diastolic BP = primary), between 6 am and 12 noon, and over a 24-h period. Patients were randomized to night-time GRD 360 mg (n = 132) or morning amlodipine 5 mg (n = 130) for 6 weeks, and were titrated to GRD 540 mg or amlodipine 10 mg after 6 weeks if clinic systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was > or = 130/85 mm Hg. RESULTS: Compared with amlodipine, GRD showed significantly greater DBP reductions of 3.5 mm Hg (P < .0049) and 3.2 mm Hg (P < .0019) during the first 4 h after awakening and between 6 am and 12 noon respectively, as well as comparable reduction for the 24-h mean DBP. The SBP reductions during the morning periods were comparable, but the reduction in the 24-h mean SBP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P < .0022) for amlodipine. Mean reductions in HR and RPP were significantly greater (P < or = .0008) for GRD during all intervals; amlodipine increased whereas diltiazem reduced HR with mean differences of 6.7 to 9.3 beats/min. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Night-time GRD was more effective than morning amlodipine in reducing early morning DBP, HR, and RPP, as well as 24-h HR and RPP in African American individuals with hypertension. Amlodipine was more effective in reducing SBP over the 24-h period.

A single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of oral hepatic-directed vesicle insulin add-on to oral antidiabetic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The dose response of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) to add-on, premeal oral hepatic-directed vesicle-insulin (HDV-I), an investigational lipid bio-nanoparticle hepatocyte-targeted insulin delivery system, was evaluated in a 3-test-meal/day model in type 2 diabetes patients. The single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating trial enrolled 6 patients with HbA(1c) 8.6 ± 2.0% (70.0 ± 21.9 mmol/mol) and on stable metformin therapy. Patients received oral HDV-I capsules daily 30 minutes before breakfast, lunch, and dinner as follows: placebo capsules, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 U/kg on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Outcome measures were PPG and incremental PPG area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). All 4 doses of oral HDV-I statistically significantly lowered mean PPG (P ≤ .0110 each) and incremental PPG (P ≤ .0352 each) AUC compared to placebo. A linear dose response was not observed. The 0.05 U/kg dose was the minimum effective dose in the dosage range studied. Three adverse events unrelated to treatment were observed. Add-on oral HDV-I 0.05-0.4 U/kg significantly lowered PPG excursions and the dose response curve was flat. These results are consistent with the lack of a linear dose response between portal and systemic plasma insulin concentrations in previous animal and human studies. Oral HDV-I was safe and well tolerated.

Hepatic-directed vesicle insulin: a review of formulation development and preclinical evaluation.

Hepatic-directed vesicle insulin (HDV-I), a novel investigational vesicle (<150 nm diameter) insulin delivery system that carries insulin and a specific hepatocyte-targeting molecule (HTM) in its phospholipid bilayer and has the ability to mimic a portal vein insulin infusion remotely [subcutaneous (SC) HDV-I] and noninvasively (oral HDV-I), has been developed. This review summarizes formulation development, subsequent refinements, and results of preclinical evaluation studies, including biodistribution, mechanistic, and toxicology studies of predominantly SC HDV-I, in various animal models. Studies conducted to date have confirmed the hepatocyte specificity of HDV and HDV-I and revealed that HDV-I can stimulate the conversion of hepatic glucose output to uptake at a dose that is <1% of the dose of regular insulin (RI) required for liver stimulation; suggest that the enhanced antihyperglycemic effect of HDV-I is due to hepatic glucose uptake; and in pancreatectomized dogs during an oral glucose tolerance test, HDV-I normalized blood glucose curves when compared to control curves in intact dogs and prevented secondary hypoglycemia in contrast to the same dose of RI. A 28-day SC HDV toxicity study in rats revealed no clinical, clinical laboratory, or histopathological findings, and the battery of three genetic toxicology studies was negative. Results support the hypothesis that HDV-I works by stimulating hepatic glucose uptake and/or glycogen storage in insulin-deficient animals. The ability to target the delivery of HDV-I to the liver reestablishes the liver as a major metabolic modulator of glucose metabolism. The future of HDV-I depends on the results of ongoing development and longer term clinical trials.

Extended-release tramadol (tramadol ER) in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of tramadol ER 300 mg and 200 mg versus placebo once daily in the treatment of chronic low back pain, using an open-label run-in followed by, without washout, a randomized controlled study design. METHODS: Adults with scores > or = 40 on a pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain; 100 = extreme pain) received open-label tramadol ER, initiated at 100 mg once daily and titrated to 300 mg once daily during a three-week open-label run-in. Patients completing run-in were randomized to receive tramadol ER 300 mg, 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 619 patients enrolled, 233 (38 percent) withdrew from the run-in, primarily because of adverse event (n = 128) or lack of efficacy (n = 41). A total of 386 patients were then randomized to receive either 300 mg (n = 128), 200 mg (n = 129), or placebo (n = 129). Following randomization, mean scores for pain intensity VAS since the previous visit, averaged over the 12-week study period, increased more in the placebo group (12.2 mm) than in the tramadol ER 300-mg (5.2 mm, p = 0.009) and 200-mg (7.8 mm, p = 0.052) groups. Secondary efficacy scores for current pain intensity VAS, patient global assessment, Roland Disability Index, and overall sleep quality improved significantly (p < or = 0.029 each) in the tramadol ER groups compared with placebo. The most common adverse events during the double-blind period were nausea, constipation, headache, dizziness, insomnia, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who tolerated and obtained pain relief from tramadol ER, continuation of tramadol ER treatment for 12 weeks maintained pain relief more effectively than placebo. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported for tramadol ER.

Open-label study of the safety and effectiveness of long-term therapy with extended-release tramadol in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol ER* is a once-daily oral analgesic for management of moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain in adults who require around-the-clock treatment of pain. This study evaluated long-term safety of tramadol ER and effectiveness outcomes in the management of chronic, nonmalignant pain. METHODS: Patients enrolled directly for approximately 1 year of open-label tramadol ER treatment if they had chronic, nonmalignant pain (n = 919), or 'rolled over' for 38 weeks of open-label tramadol ER treatment if they completed either of two 12-week, placebo-controlled studies of tramadol ER for low back pain (n = 72) or osteoarthritis (n = 61). Tramadol ER was titrated to a dose of 300 mg once daily (patients >or= 75 years) or 300-400 mg once daily (patients < 75 years). RESULTS: A total of 257 (24%) patients completed the study. Common adverse events, regardless of treatment relationship, were nausea, dizziness (excluding vertigo), and constipation. Mean scores for current pain intensity (from 0 = no pain to 100 = extreme pain) and least, worst, and average pain intensity over the past week improved at every post-baseline visit. At each post-baseline visit, > 50% of patients provided a global assessment rating of good, very good, or excellent. Study limitations were mandatory titration to 400 mg in some patients, concomitant analgesic therapy as a confounding variable, and lack of a placebo comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized dose titration and limiting once-daily therapy with tramadol ER to the maximum recommended daily dose of 300 mg may balance tolerability and analgesic effects of tramadol ER in patients with chronic, nonmalignant pain.