Molecular response in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: prediction modeling and pathway analysis.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia treatment and showed how targeted therapy and molecular monitoring could be used to substantially improve survival outcomes. We used chronic myeloid leukemia as a model to understand a critical question: why do some patients have an excellent response to therapy, while others have a poor response? We studied gene expression in whole blood samples from 112 patients from a large phase III randomized trial (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT00471497), dichotomizing cases into good responders (BCR::ABL1 ≤10% on the International Scale by 3 and 6 months and ≤0.1% by 12 months) and poor responders (failure to meet these criteria). Predictive models based on gene expression demonstrated the best performance (area under the curve =0.76, standard deviation =0.07). All of the top 20 pathways overexpressed in good responders involved immune regulation, a finding validated in an independent data set. This study emphasizes the importance of pretreatment adaptive immune response in treatment efficacy and suggests biological pathways that can be targeted to improve response.

Deep molecular responses achieved in patients with CML-CP who are switched to nilotinib after long-term imatinib.

Patients in complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) with detectable BCR-ABL1 after ≥2 years on imatinib were randomized to nilotinib (400 mg twice daily, n = 104) or continued imatinib (n = 103) in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in clinical Trials-Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) trial. By 1 and 2 years, confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL1 was achieved by 12.5% vs 5.8% (P = .108) and 22.1% vs 8.7% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively (P = .0087). Among patients without molecular response 4.5 (BCR-ABL1(IS) ≤0.0032%; MR(4.5)) and those without major molecular response at study start, MR(4.5) by 2 years was achieved by 42.9% vs 20.8% and 29.2% vs 3.6% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively. No patient in the nilotinib arm lost CCyR, vs 3 in the imatinib arm. Adverse events were more common in the nilotinib arm, as expected with the introduction of a new drug vs remaining on a well-tolerated drug. The safety profile of nilotinib was consistent with other reported studies. In summary, switching to nilotinib enabled more patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) to sustain lower levels of disease burden vs remaining on imatinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00760877.

Antihypertensive and metabolic effects of Angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination therapy in obese, hypertensive African American and white patients.

A clinical trial showed comparable blood pressure (BP) lowering by valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients. Relative to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced the hyperglycemic response to glucose challenge. An objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether this benefit extended to African Americans and whites. Treatments (160/12.5 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 320/25 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 or 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 with 5 and 10 mg of amlodipine added at weeks 8 and 12, respectively) were administered once daily. Both treatments reduced clinic BP from baseline to all visits (P < 0.0001), regardless of race/ethnicity (126 African Americans, 212 whites). In African Americans, there were no significant between-treatment differences in clinic or ambulatory BP lowering at weeks 8 or 16. Whites responded better to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan but not amlodipine mitigated the hyperglycemic response to hydrochlorothiazide through enhanced insulin secretion. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was as effective as amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide was in reducing BP in obese, hypertensive African Americans and better than amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in whites. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan to hydrochlorothiazide reduced the negative metabolic effects associated with thiazide therapy.

Antihypertensive response to thiazide diuretic or angiotensin receptor blocker in elderly hypertensives is not influenced by pretreatment plasma renin activity.

PURPOSE: Renin profiling has been proposed as a method to guide antihypertensive drug selection. This prespecified post-hoc analysis examined the influence of baseline plasma renin activity (PRA) on blood pressure (BP) responses. METHODS: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, prompted-titration trial evaluated initial valsartan (V)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy versus initial HCTZ or V monotherapy in individuals aged ≥ 70 years with systolic hypertension. Sitting PRA was measured at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16. Subjects were stratified into 2 groups for analysis: low renin (baseline PRA < 0.65 ng/mL/h) or normal-high renin (baseline PRA ≥ 0.65 ng/mL/h). RESULTS: PRA data were available in 322/384 subjects: 178 had low PRA and 144 had normal-high PRA. At Week 4, V/HCTZ was more effective than HCTZ or V at reducing mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), independent of baseline PRA, with reductions of -16.9, -12.6, and -9.5 mmHg, respectively, in low-renin subjects and -19.4, -11.5, and -8.6 mmHg in normal-high renin subjects. Baseline PRA was similar in responders (subjects not uptitrated at Week 4) and nonresponders (subjects uptitrated at Week 4). In responders, the reactive rise in PRA at Week 4 was related to change in MSSBP, with the greatest increases in PRA observed in the V/HCTZ group. Higher baseline PRA was associated with a greater reactive rise in PRA. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PRA is not a useful guide to the BP responses of initial combination V/HCTZ in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Phase I/II Trial of Exemestane, Ribociclib, and Everolimus in Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer after Progression on CDK4/6 Inhibitors (TRINITI-1).

PURPOSE: Standard-of-care treatment for metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer includes endocrine therapy (ET) combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). Optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6i is unknown. The TRINITI-1 trial investigated ribociclib, a CDK4/6i that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in two phase III trials, in combination with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) after progression on a CDK4/6i. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase I/II study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at week 24 among patients with ET-refractory disease with progression on a CDK4/6i. Other endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients enrolled (phases I and II), 96 had prior CDK4/6i. Recommended phase II doses (all once daily days 1-28 of 28-day cycle) were ribociclib 300 mg, everolimus 2.5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 1) and ribociclib 200 mg, everolimus 5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 2). CBR among 95 efficacy-evaluable patients (phases I and II) at week 24 was 41.1% (95% confidence interval, 31.1-51.6), which met the primary endpoint (predetermined threshold: 10%). Common adverse events included neutropenia (69.2%) and stomatitis (40.4%). No new safety signals were observed; no grade 3/4 QTc prolongation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary TRINITI-1 safety and efficacy results support further investigation of CDK4/6 blockade and targeting of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway in patients with ET-refractory HR+/HER2- ABC after progression on a CDK4/6i.

Midostaurin after allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with FLT3-internal tandem duplication-positive acute myeloid leukemia.

We evaluated standard-of-care (SOC) treatment with or without midostaurin to prevent relapse following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring internal tandem duplication (ITD) in FLT3. Adults (aged 18-70 years) who received alloHSCT in first complete remission, had achieved hematologic recovery, and were transfusion independent were randomized to receive SOC with or without midostaurin (50 mg twice daily) continuously in twelve 4-week cycles. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) 18 months post-alloHSCT. Sixty patients were randomized (30/arm); 30 completed all 12 cycles (midostaurin + SOC, n = 16; SOC, n = 14). The estimated 18-month RFS (95% CI) was 89% (69-96%) in the midostaurin arm and 76% (54-88%) in the SOC arm (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.12-1.86]; P = 0.27); estimated relapse rates were 11% and 24%, respectively. Inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation to <70% of baseline (achieved by 50% of midostaurin-treated patients) was associated with improved RFS. The most common serious adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Rates of graft-vs-host disease were similar between both arms (midostaurin + SOC, 70%; SOC, 73%). The addition of midostaurin maintenance therapy following alloHSCT may provide clinical benefit in some patients with FLT3-ITD AML. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01883362).

Updated safety of midostaurin plus chemotherapy in newly diagnosed FLT3 mutation-positive acute myeloid leukemia: the RADIUS-X expanded access program.

Approval of midostaurin, a multikinase inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutation-positive acute myeloid leukemia, was based on the phase 3 RATIFY trial results. RADIUS-X (NCT02624570) was an expanded access program providing access to midostaurin during regulatory review and extending the understanding of the safety and tolerability of midostaurin. Patients aged ≥18 years received midostaurin with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy (cytarabine plus daunorubicin or idarubicin) and ≤4 cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy or as single-agent maintenance therapy. The study enrolled 103 patients. No new safety events were observed; toxicities were not influenced by age, anthracycline choice, or coadministration of CYP3A4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events (AEs) were febrile neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea. During maintenance, 46% of patients reported AEs. Midostaurin demonstrated a manageable safety profile and was associated with high transplant and low on-treatment relapse rates.

Efficacy and safety of buparlisib, a PI3K inhibitor, in patients with malignancies harboring a PI3K pathway activation: a phase 2, open-label, single-arm study.

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation plays a key role in tumorigenesis and has been associated with poor prognosis and resistance to multiple therapies in various cancers. Results: There were 146 patients enrolled; common tumor types were colorectal, sarcoma, and ovarian. Tumors had PI3K pathway alterations and a median of four mutations with tissue-specific patterns of mutation burden (lowest: sarcoma [2.5]; highest: esophagus, germ cell tumor, skin non-melanoma, vaginal [7]). The number of prior therapies did not correlate with the number of genetic alterations (Pearson r = -0.037). The clinical benefit rate was 15.1% (n = 22). An additional patient had an unconfirmed complete response. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, hyperglycemia, decreased appetite, and diarrhea. Patient and Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm study, patients with solid or hematologic malignancies with PI3K pathway activation and progression on or after standard treatment received buparlisib (100 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate per local investigator assessment (response or stable disease at ≥16 weeks). Conclusions: Buparlisib was well tolerated, however efficacy was limited despite selection of PI3K pathway aberrations. Future studies may provide insight into buparlisib efficacy by refining the molecular selection of different tumor types.

Tissue/Site-Agnostic Study of Ribociclib for Tumors With Cyclin D-CDK4/6 Pathway Genomic Alterations: A Phase II, Open-Label, Single-Arm Basket Study.

PURPOSE: As part of the Novartis Signature Program, this study evaluated the efficacy of ribociclib (selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 [CDK4/6] inhibitor) in patients with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway-aberrant tumors. METHODS: This was a phase II, single-arm, signal-seeking study in patients with advanced malignancies that had progressed on or after standard treatment. Prior identification of tumor CDK4/6 mutation or amplification, CCND1/3 amplification, or CDKN2A mutation or loss was required. Clinical benefit (defined as the proportion of patients with response or stable disease at ≥ 16 weeks) was the primary end point. RESULTS: From 61 centers in the United States, 106 patients (median age, 62.5 years) were enrolled across multiple malignancies. The patient population was heavily pretreated (median number of prior therapies, three; range, 0 to 19). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 1.9). In patients with solid tumors, the clinical benefit rate was 18.1% (n = 19 of 105) and the overall response rate was 2.9% (n = 3 of 105); three partial responses occurred in patients with adenocarcinoma (unknown primary), soft tissue sarcoma, and urothelial carcinoma. No tumor cohort met the prespecified criteria for success. The most common adverse events suspected to be related to treatment were neutropenia (30.2%; decreased neutrophils, 15.1%), fatigue (31.1%), and nausea (29.2%). Fatigue and nausea were typically mild. Only one incident of febrile neutropenia was experienced (grade 3). CONCLUSION: No new or unexpected safety signals were observed in this heavily pretreated patient population. Although responses were seen in tumors with CCND1-CDK4/6 amplifications, the primary end point was not met, suggesting additional evaluation of ribociclib, possibly as combination therapy, is needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Ribociclib With Letrozole in US Patients Enrolled in the MONALEESA-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. RESULTS: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC.

Effect of angiotensin receptor blockade and antihypertensive drugs on diastolic function in patients with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Diastolic dysfunction might represent an important pathophysiological intermediate between hypertension and heart failure. Our aim was to determine whether inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which can reduce ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis, can improve diastolic function to a greater extent than can other antihypertensive agents. METHODS: Patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (titrated to 320 mg once daily) or matched placebo. Patients in both groups also received concomitant antihypertensive agents that did not inhibit the renin-angiotensin system to reach targets of under 135 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and under 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure. The primary endpoint was change in diastolic relaxation velocity between baseline and 38 weeks as determined by tissue doppler imaging. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170924. FINDINGS: 186 patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan; 198 were randomly assigned to receive placebo. 43 patients were lost to follow-up or discontinued the assigned intervention. Over 38 weeks, there was a 12.8 (SD 17.2)/7.1 (9.9) mm Hg reduction in blood pressure in the valsartan group and a 9.7 (17.0)/5.5 (10.2) mm Hg reduction in the placebo group. The difference in blood pressure reduction between the two groups was not significant. Diastolic relaxation velocity increased by 0.60 (SD 1.4) cm/s from baseline in the valsartan group (p<0.0001) and 0.44 (1.4) cm/s from baseline in the placebo group (p<0.0001) by week 38. However, there was no significant difference in the change in diastolic relaxation velocity between the groups (p=0.29). INTERPRETATION: Lowering blood pressure improves diastolic function irrespective of the type of antihypertensive agent used.

Improving blood pressure control: increase the dose of diuretic or switch to a fixed-dose angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic? the valsartan hydrochlorothiazide diuretic for initial control and titration to achieve optimal therapeutic effect (Val-DICTATE) trial.

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.

Rationale and design: the VALsartan In Diastolic Dysfunction (VALIDD) Trial: evolving the management of diastolic dysfunction in hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although 50% of hypertensive patients in the community are estimated to have diastolic dysfunction, there is no specific guideline for diastolic dysfunction therapy at present despite the condition's clear association with increased cardiovascular risk. Although the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy regression has been established, the effect of angiotensin II receptor blockade on intrinsic parameters of diastolic function has not been evaluated in large-scale studies. METHODS: The VALIDD Trial is an investigator-initiated randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial on approximately 350 patients designed to explore whether antihypertensive therapy with the ARB valsartan, in addition to standard therapy, would improve intrinsic diastolic properties of the myocardium in patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. The result of such therapy will be compared with placebo after 38 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy variable is change in early diastolic lateral mitral annular relaxation velocity measured by tissue Doppler imaging on week 38. CONCLUSIONS: We expect the VALIDD Trial to provide novel insights into the specific effects of ARBs on diastolic dysfunction, as assessed by tissue Doppler imaging, in hypertensive patients. The trial may provide clinically useful data on whether such therapy can directly improve diastolic function in patients with hypertension.

A randomized, double-blind trial comparing the effects of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl vs amlodipine on endothelial function and blood pressure.

Evidence suggests that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition ameliorates endothelial dysfunction. The authors examined the effect of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl combination treatment compared with amlodipine besylate monotherapy in modulating endothelial dysfunction. This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 70 hypertensive subjects with at least one other endothelial dysfunction risk factor to amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d force-titrated to 5/40 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d force-titrated to 10 mg/d). Both the combination and monotherapy produced significant median increases from baseline in percentage flow-mediated vasodilation (2.0% and 1.2%, respectively) and percentage change in percent flow-mediated vasodilation (25% and 16%, respectively). These improvements were numerically larger with combination treatment, but between-group differences did not achieve statistical significance. Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly greater (P=.0452/P=.0297) with combination treatment (-18.6/-12.3 mm Hg) than with monotherapy (-14.8/-9.1 mm Hg). A highly positive correlation between change in systolic blood pressure and change in percent of flow-mediated vasodilation was demonstrated only for combination treatment.

Efficacy of combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride for lowering systolic blood pressure in stage 2 hypertension.

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.

PRESERVE-beta: two-year efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide or glyburide plus metformin.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide/metformin versus glyburide/metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 2-year study of 428 drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients received 120 mg a.c. nateglinide or 1.25 mg q.d. glyburide plus 500 mg q.d. open-label metformin for the initial 4 weeks. During a subsequent 12-week titration period, glyburide and metformin were increased by 1.25- and 500-mg increments to maximum daily doses of 10 and 2,000 mg, respectively, if biweekly fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 6.7 mmol/l. Nateglinide was not titrated. Blinding was maintained by use of matching placebo for nateglinide and glyburide. An 88-week monitoring period followed, during which HbA1c (A1C), FPG, and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGEs) during an oral glucose tolerance test were measured. RESULTS: In nateglinide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.4% at baseline and 6.9% at week 104. In glyburide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.3% at baseline and 6.8% at week 104 (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline for both treatments, NS between treatments). The deltaPPGE averaged -96 +/- 19 (P < 0.0001) and -57 +/- 22 mmol.l(-1).min(-1) (P < 0.05) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively, whereas deltaFPG was -1.6 +/- 0.2 (P < 0.0001) and -2.4 +/- 0.2 mmol/l (P < 0.0001) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively (P < 0.01 between groups). Thus, the two treatments achieved similar efficacy with differential effects on FPG versus PPGE. Hypoglycemia occurred in 8.2 and 17.7% of patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar good glycemic control can be maintained for 2 years with either treatment regimen, but nateglinide/metformin may represent a safer approach to initial combination therapy.

Efficacy of combination therapy for systolic blood pressure in patients with severe systolic hypertension: the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study.

Systolic hypertension is predominant among patients over 50 years of age, is a more important cardiovascular risk factor than diastolic blood pressure, and is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommends combination therapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage 2 hypertension. In the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to identify patients with systolic hypertension and to determine the impact of 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl 5/20 mg combination therapy (n=149), amlodipine besylate 5 mg (n=146), or benazepril HCl 20 mg (n=148). Combination therapy was significantly more effective in reducing systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure than either monotherapy (p<0.0001). Significantly greater percentages of patients in the combination group compared with either monotherapy achieved blood pressure control (p<0.0001). Adverse events were low in all three treatment arms, with less peripheral edema in the combination group than in the amlodipine-treated group. The combination of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl given to patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension resulted in significantly greater reductions in blood pressure and pulse pressure than those seen with monotherapy and was at least as well tolerated as the separate components. This data supports the recommendation of the JNC 7 for the use of combination therapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

The GOLD ReGISTry: a Global, Prospective, Observational Registry Collecting Longitudinal Data on Patients with Advanced and Localised Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common gastrointestinal sarcomas. This global, prospective registry followed patients with advanced or localised GIST (2007-2011). METHODS: Current and evolving diagnostics, treatments and outcome measures in patients with GIST were assessed. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced or localised GIST within 15months of registry entry. No treatment plan was prescribed, and no visit schedule was mandated. Treating physicians recorded patient information, including tumour response, diagnostic methods, medications, surgeries performed, mutation status and adverse events leading to dose/medication changes. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Other data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The registry included 1663 patients (advanced GIST, n=1095; localised GIST, n=537). Medications (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitor use and dosing), disease progression or recurrence and physician assessment of response to treatment in registry patients were consistent with controlled trials and prevailing clinical recommendations. In advanced GIST, estimated 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) (59.8%) and overall survival (OS) (82.7%) were higher than results from previously reported trials (≈40% and ≈70%, respectively). Consistent with treatment guidelines, the most common initial treatments were imatinib for advanced GIST, and complete surgical resection for localised GIST. Computed tomography scans were the most common imaging technique used at diagnosis and follow-up. Mutation analysis was performed at diagnosis in only 15.3% and 14.5% of patients with advanced and localised GIST, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world GIST registry, patients with advanced GIST were treated with imatinib and patients with localised GIST received surgical resection, in accordance with prevailing clinical recommendations.

Initial angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination therapy achieves superior blood pressure control compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d). RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.

Randomized study of antihypertensive efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan monotherapy in hypertensive participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

In this double-blind study, 1143 hypertensive participants with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 or 2 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were randomized to receive combination aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg or valsartan 160 mg monotherapy for 2 weeks, with force-titration to 300/320 mg and 320 mg, respectively, for another 6 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), the primary outcome, was available for 665 participants. Reductions from baseline to week 8 in 24-hour ABP were -14.1/-8.7 mm Hg with aliskiren/valsartan vs -10.2/-6.3 mm Hg with valsartan (P<.001). Adverse events were reported in 202 participants (35.2%) taking aliskiren/valsartan and 182 participants (32.2%) taking valsartan. No participant had blood urea nitrogen values>40 mg/dL or serum creatinine values>2.0 mg/dL. There were no confirmed cases of serum potassium values≥6.0 mEq/L. Combination aliskiren/valsartan has additive effects on blood pressure reduction and tolerability similar to valsartan in hypertensive/diabetic participants with early-stage (stages 1 and 2) CKD.