A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of siltuximab (anti-IL-6 mAb) and bortezomib versus bortezomib alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

We compared the safety and efficacy of siltuximab (S), an anti-interleukin-6 chimeric monoclonal antibody, plus bortezomib (B) with placebo (plc) + B in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a randomized phase 2 study. Siltuximab was given by 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks. On progression, B was discontinued and high-dose dexamethasone could be added to S/plc. Response and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed pre-dexamethasone by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. For the 281 randomized patients, median PFS for S + B and plc + B was 8.0 and 7.6 months (HR 0.869, P = 0.345), overall response rate was 55 versus 47% (P = 0.213), complete response rate was 11 versus 7%, and median overall survival (OS) was 30.8 versus 36.8 months (HR 1.353, P = 0.103). Sustained suppression of C-reactive protein, a marker reflective of inhibition of interleukin-6 activity, was seen with S + B. Siltuximab did not affect B pharmacokinetics. Siltuximab/placebo discontinuation (75 versus 66%), grade ≥3 neutropenia (49 versus 29%), thrombocytopenia (48 versus 34%), and all-grade infections (62 versus 49%) occurred more frequently with S + B. The addition of siltuximab to bortezomib did not appear to improve PFS or OS despite a numerical increase in response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Siltuximab for multicentric Castleman's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multicentric Castleman's disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder driven by dysregulated production of interleukin 6. No randomised trials have been done to establish the best treatment for the disease. We assessed the safety and efficacy of siltuximab-a chimeric monoclonal antibody against interleukin 6-in HIV-negative patients with multicentric Castleman's disease. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at 38 hospitals in 19 countries worldwide. We enrolled HIV-negative and human herpesvirus-8-seronegative patients with symptomatic multicentric Castleman's disease. Treatment allocation was randomised with a computer-generated list, with block size six, and stratification by baseline corticosteroid use. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to siltuximab (11 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or placebo; all patients also received best supportive care. Patients continued treatment until treatment failure. The primary endpoint was durable tumour and symptomatic response for at least 18 weeks for the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment has been completed. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01024036. FINDINGS: We screened 140 patients, 79 of whom were randomly assigned to siltuximab (n=53) or placebo (n=26). Durable tumour and symptomatic responses occurred in 18 (34%) of 53 patients in the siltuximab group and none of 26 in the placebo group (difference 34·0%, 95% CI 11·1-54·8, p=0·0012). The incidence of grade 3 or more adverse events (25 [47%] vs 14 [54%]) and serious adverse events (12 [23%] vs five [19%]) was similar in each group despite longer median treatment duration with siltuximab than with placebo (375 days [range 1-1031] vs 152 days [23-666]). The most common grade 3 or higher were fatigue (five vs one), night sweats (four vs one), and anaemia (one vs three). Three (6%) of 53 patients had serious adverse events judged reasonably related to siltuximab (lower respiratory tract infection, anaphylactic reaction, sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Siltuximab plus best supportive care was superior to best supportive care alone for patients with symptomatic multicentric Castleman's disease and well tolerated with prolonged exposure. Siltuximab is an important new treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Evaluation of Cardiac Repolarization in the Randomized Phase 2 Study of Intermediate- or High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with Daratumumab Monotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma. Daratumumab inhibition of CD38, which is expressed on immune cell populations and cardiomyocytes, could potentially affect cardiac function. This QTc substudy of the phase 2 CENTAURUS study investigated the potential effect of intravenous daratumumab monotherapy on QTc prolongation and other electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters, including concentration-QTc effect modeling. METHODS: Patients had intermediate- or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Patients with QT interval corrected by Fridericia's formula (QTcF) > 470 ms, QRS interval ≥ 110 ms, or PR interval ≥ 200 ms were excluded. Triplicate ECGs were collected at screening, Dose 1, and Dose 8. Analyses of on-treatment ECGs were conducted with a time-matched baseline (primary analysis). By time-point, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), and outlier analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 123 patients in CENTAURUS, 31 were enrolled in the QTc substudy. Daratumumab produced a small increase in heart rate (5-12 beats per minute) of unclear significance. There was a small but clinically insignificant effect on QTc, as measured by both time-matched time-point and PK/PD analyses. The primary analysis demonstrated a maximum mean increase in QTcF of 9.1 ms (90% 2-sided upper confidence interval [CI], 14.1 ms). The primary PK/PD analysis predicted a maximum QTcF increase of 8.5 ms (90% 2-sided upper CI, 13.5 ms). No patient had an abnormal U wave, a new QTcF > 500 ms, or > 60 ms change from baseline for QTcF. CONCLUSION: Analysis of ECG intervals and concentration-QTc relationships showed a small but clinically insignificant effect of daratumumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02316106.

Scientific diligence for oncology drugs: a pharmacology, translational medicine and clinical perspective.

Increasingly, new drug development by major pharmaceutical companies relies on in-licensing of innovative therapies. Often there are limited data accompanying these novel entities. By focusing on scientific principles and generating key preclinical and clinical data, discovery companies can improve their valuations. From the lens of a large pharmaceutical company, we highlight key scientific aspects that are assessed to mitigate risk in valuations and deal terms. Our focus is on clinical development aspects for oncology drugs by stage of development. However, these lessons apply equally to other therapeutic areas.

Daratumumab monotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma: a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study (CENTAURUS).

Current guidelines for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) recommend active monitoring until the onset of multiple myeloma (MM) before initiating treatment or enrollment in a clinical trial. Earlier intervention may delay progression to MM. In CENTAURUS, 123 patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk SMM were randomly assigned to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on extended intense (intense), extended intermediate (intermediate), or short dosing schedules. At the prespecified primary analysis (15.8-month median follow-up), the complete response (CR) rates (co-primary endpoint) were 2.4%, 4.9%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively; the co-primary endpoint of CR rate >15% was not met. Progressive disease (PD)/death rates (number of patients who progressed or died divided by total duration of progression-free survival [PFS] in patient-years; co-primary endpoint) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.055 (80% confidence interval [CI], 0.014-0.096), 0.102 (80% CI, 0.044-0.160), and 0.206 (80% CI, 0.118-0.295), respectively, translating to a median PFS ≥24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001, <0.0001, and =0.0213, respectively). With longer follow-up (median follow-up, 25.9 months), CR rates were 4.9%, 9.8%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. PD/death rates for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.059 (80% CI, 0.025-0.092), 0.107 (80% CI, 0.058-0.155), and 0.150 (80% CI, 0.089-0.211), respectively, again translating to a median PFS ≥ 24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001 for all arms). Twenty-four-month PFS rates were 89.9% (90% CI, 78.5-95.4%), 82.0% (90% CI, 69.0-89.9%), and 75.3% (90% CI, 61.1-85.0%) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated that intense dosing maintained target-saturating trough concentrations in most patients throughout weekly, every-2-week, and every-4-week dosing periods. No new safety signals were observed. These data provide the basis for an ongoing phase 3 study of daratumumab in SMM.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study of Siltuximab in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: IL6 is important for the growth and survival of myeloma cells. This study evaluated blocking IL6 with siltuximab to delay the transition from high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 85 patients with high-risk SMM were randomized to 15 mg/kg siltuximab (43 patients) or placebo (42 patients). The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, based on IMWG CRAB criteria. Secondary endpoints included progressive disease indicator rate, PFS, and safety. RESULTS: Median age was 62 years (range: 21-84); 57% were male and 87% had a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0. The 1-year PFS rate was 84.5% (siltuximab) and 74.4% (placebo). After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, 32.6% of PFS events occurred with siltuximab and 42.9% with placebo. Median PFS was not reached with siltuximab but was 23.5 months with placebo [HR 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.04); P = 0.0597]. The safety profile of siltuximab was comparable with placebo. Most adverse events in the siltuximab group were grade 2/3; the most common serious adverse events were infections/infestations, and renal/urinary disorders. Mortality was low in both groups (3 deaths in the siltuximab group and 4 in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not meet the prespecified protocol hypothesis criteria, data suggest that siltuximab may delay the progression of high-risk SMM.

Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer with and without Prior Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of apalutamide before or after treatment with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Experimental Design: Two cohorts were studied: AAP-naïve and post-AAP patients who had received ≥6 months of AAP. Patients had progressive mCRPC per rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or imaging, without prior chemotherapy exposure. All received apalutamide 240 mg/day. Primary endpoint was ≥50% decline in 12-week PSA according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression and time on treatment.Results: Forty-six patients enrolled in the AAP-naïve (n = 25) and post-AAP (n = 21) cohorts. The 12-week PSA response rate was 88% (22/25) and 22% (4/18), median time to PSA progression was 18.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.3 months-not reached) and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6 months), and median time on treatment 21 months (range, 2.6-37.5) and 4.9 months (range, 1.3-23.2), for the AAP-naïve and post-AAP cohorts, respectively. Eighty percent (95% CI, 59-93) and 64% (95% CI, 43-82) of AAP-naïve and 43% (95% CI, 22-66) and 10% (95% CI, 1-30) of post-AAP patients remained on treatment for 6+ and 12+ months, respectively. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both cohorts were grade 1 or 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain.Conclusions: Apalutamide was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated clinical activity in mCRPC, with 80% of AAP-naïve and 43% of post-AAP patients, remaining on treatment for 6 months or longer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3544-51. ©2017 AACR.

Phase 2 Study of the Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509), a Potent Androgen Receptor Antagonist, in the High-risk Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is a potent androgen receptor (AR) antagonist that targets the AR ligand-binding domain and prevents AR nuclear translocation, DNA binding, and transcription of AR gene targets. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the activity and safety of apalutamide in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter phase 2 study of nmCRPC patients with a high risk for progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥8 ng/ml or PSA doubling time [PSA DT] ≤10 mo). INTERVENTION: Patients received 240mg/d apalutamide while continuing on androgen-deprivation therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was 12-wk PSA response (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria). Secondary end points included safety, time to PSA progression (TTPP), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled; four patients with metastatic disease were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Patient characteristics included median age, 71 yr; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (76%); Gleason score ≤7 (57%); median PSA 10.7 ng/ml; and PSA DT ≤10 mo (45%). At median follow-up of 28.0 mo, 18 patients (35%) remained in the study. Overall, 89% of patients had ≥50% PSA decline at 12 wk. Median TTPP was 24.0 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.3 mo-not reached [NR]); median MFS was NR (95% CI, 33.4 mo-NR). Most of the patients discontinued study treatment (n=33) due to disease progression (n=11 [22%]) or adverse events (AEs) (n=9 [18%]). The most common AE was fatigue (any grade, n=31 [61%]) although grade ≥3 fatigue was uncommon (n=2 [4%]). These represent the first apalutamide nmCRPC patient clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk nmCRPC patients, apalutamide was safe with robust activity based on durable PSA responses and disease control. PATIENT SUMMARY: Antitumor activity and the safety of apalutamide in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer support continued development in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01171898.

Large dosage amoxicillin/clavulanate, compared with azithromycin, for the treatment of bacterial acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: A large dosage pediatric formulation of amoxicillin/clavulanate with an improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile was developed to eradicate many penicillin-resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae (including beta-lactamase-producing strains). METHODS: This randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter trial examined treatment of bacterial acute otitis media (AOM) in children 6-30 months of age with amoxicillin/clavulanate (90/6.4 mg/kg/d in 2 divided doses for 10 days) versus azithromycin (10 mg/kg for 1 day followed by 5 mg/kg/d for 4 days). Tympanocentesis was performed at entry for bacteriologic assessment, at the on-therapy visit (day 4-6) to determine bacterial eradication and at any time before the end-of-therapy visit (day 12-14) if the child was categorized as experiencing clinical failure. Clinical assessments were performed at the on-therapy, end-of-therapy and follow-up (day 21-25) visits. RESULTS: We enrolled 730 children; AOM pathogens were isolated at baseline for 249 of the amoxicillin/clavulanate group and 245 of the azithromycin group. For children with AOM pathogens at baseline, clinical success rates at the end-of-therapy visit were 90.5% for amoxicillin/clavulanate versus 80.9% for azithromycin (P < 0.01), and those at the on-therapy and follow-up visits were 94.9% versus 88.0% and 80.3% versus 71.1%, respectively (all P < 0.05). At the on-therapy visit, pretherapy pathogens were eradicated for 94.2% of children receiving amoxicillin/clavulanate versus 70.3% of those receiving azithromycin (P < 0.001). Amoxicillin/clavulanate eradicated 96.0% of S. pneumoniae (92.0% of fully penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae) and 89.7% of H. influenzae (85.7% [6 of 7 cases] of beta-lactamase-positive H. influenzae). Corresponding rates for azithromycin were 80.4% (54.5%) for S. pneumoniae and 49.1% (100% [1 of 1 case]) for H. influenzae (all P < 0.01 for between-drug comparisons). CONCLUSION: Amoxicillin/clavulanate was clinically and bacteriologically more effective than azithromycin among children with bacterial AOM, including cases caused by penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae and beta-lactamase-positive H. influenzae.

Dose selection of siltuximab for multicentric Castleman's disease.

PURPOSE: Siltuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 with high affinity and specificity; C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase protein induced by IL-6. CRP suppression is an indirect measurement of IL-6 activity. Here, modeling and simulation of the pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship between siltuximab and CRP were used to support dose selection for multicentric Castleman's disease (CD). METHODS: PK/PD modeling was applied to explore the relationship between siltuximab PK and CRP suppression following intravenous siltuximab infusion in 47 patients with B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 17), multiple myeloma (n = 13), or CD (n = 17). Siltuximab was administered as 2.8, 5.5, or 11 mg/kg q2wks, 11 mg/kg q3wks, or 5.5 mg/kg weekly. Simulations of studied or hypothetical siltuximab dosage regimens (15 mg/kg q4wks) were also performed to evaluate maintenance of CRP suppression below the cutoff value of 1 mg/L. RESULTS: A two-compartment PK model and an inhibitory indirect response PD model adequately described the serum siltuximab and CRP concentration-time profiles simultaneously. PD parameter estimates were physiologically plausible. For all disease types, simulations showed that 11 mg/kg q3wks or 15 mg/kg q4wks would reduce serum CRP to below 1 mg/L after the second dose and throughout the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: PK/PD modeling was used to select doses for further development of siltuximab in multicentric CD. The dosing recommendation was also supported by the observed efficacy dose-response relationship. CRP suppression in the subsequent randomized multicentric CD study was in agreement with the modeling predictions.

Analysis of Inflammatory and Anemia-Related Biomarkers in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Siltuximab (Anti-IL6 Monoclonal Antibody) in Patients With Multicentric Castleman Disease.

PURPOSE: Siltuximab (IL6 antibody) is approved for the treatment of multicentric Castleman disease (MCD). Effects of IL6 inhibition on the inflammatory milieu accompanying MCD have not been characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Trends in inflammatory- and anemia-associated markers, measured over the course of a placebo-controlled study of siltuximab (11 mg/kg q3w) in patients with MCD (n = 79), were characterized. RESULTS: Baseline IL6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were significantly correlated (r = 0.708; P < 0.0001). CRP levels decreased (median, 92%) by cycle 1 day 8 (C1D8), remaining suppressed during siltuximab treatment while remaining stable in the placebo group. There were no associations between baseline CRP or IL6 and MCD symptom burden, histologic subtype, ethnicity, maximum CRP decrease, and response parameters. A hemoglobin response (change ≥ 15 g/L at week 13) was observed with siltuximab (61%; P = 0.0002). Median hepcidin decrease from baseline at C1D8 with siltuximab was 47% versus median 11% increase with placebo. Maximum post-baseline changes in hepcidin levels among siltuximab recipients were correlated with maximum changes for hemoglobin (r = -0.395; P = 0.00607), total iron-binding capacity (TIBC; r = -0.354; P = 0.01694), and ferritin (r = 0.599; P = 0.0001). Greater median changes from baseline in ferritin, hemoglobin, and TIBC were observed in anemic siltuximab-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: IL6 neutralization with siltuximab resulted in sustained CRP suppression and improvement of anemia, in part, by hepcidin pathway inhibition.

A phase 1, randomized study to assess the pharmacokinetic comparability of siltuximab derived from two different cell lines in healthy subjects.

Siltuximab, a monoclonal antibody (mAb) against interleukin (IL-6), is under development by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. During early clinical development, siltuximab was produced in a murine Sp2/0 myeloma cell line. The production cell line was switched to stably transfected Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line for subsequent clinical development. A two-part, parallel-group, phase 1 study was designed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single IV administration of Sp2/0- and CHO-derived siltuximab in healthy subjects. The results from this study demonstrated PK comparability of siltuximab produced from Sp2/0 and CHO cell lines. The 90% confidence interval of the ratios of geometric means of Cmax and AUC0-84day following 1.4 mg/kg doses was (99.4%, 111.3%) and (98.1%, 109.6%), respectively, both within the pre-specified comparability range of 80-125%. Siltuximab derived from either the Sp2/0 or CHO cell lines was in general well tolerated and was not found to be immunogenic in this study.

Evaluation of the QTc prolongation potential of a monoclonal antibody, siltuximab, in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smoldering multiple myeloma, or low-volume multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: A phase 1 study evaluated the QTc prolongation potential of siltuximab, a chimeric, anti-interleukin-6 mAb, in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), or low-volume MM. METHODS: Patients with baseline QTcF and QTcB ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 100 ms, PR < 200 ms and no significant cardiac disease received siltuximab 15 mg/kg q3w, the highest dosage used in clinical studies, for 4 cycles. Twelve-lead ECGs obtained at multiple time points pre- and post-infusion at cycles 1 and 4 were evaluated by central cardiology laboratory. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper limit of least square (LS) mean 90 % CI for QTc change from baseline at each time point was <20 ms. RESULTS: An effect on QTc prolongation was ruled out, as the upper bound of 90 % CI was <10 ms at each time point in 27 evaluable patients (13 MGUS, 13 SMM, 1 low-volume MM) with no differences between disease types. Maximum mean QTc increase from baseline occurred 3 h after cycle 1 infusion (QTcF = 3.2 [LS mean 90 % CI -0.01, 6.45] ms; QTcB = 2.7 [-0.69, 6.14] ms). At all other time points, mean QTcF and QTcB increase from baseline was ≤1.5 ms and upper bound 90 % CI was ≤5.1 ms. Twenty patients had mostly low-grade AEs, including nausea, fatigue (20 % each); thrombocytopenia, headache (each 13 %); dyspnea, leukopenia, neutropenia, paresthesia, abnormal hepatic function, URTI (each 10 %). Three MGUS patients achieved 50 % M-protein reduction. There was no association between siltuximab pharmacokinetics and QTc interval. CONCLUSIONS: Siltuximab did not affect the QTc interval. Overall safety was similar to other single-agent siltuximab studies.

A phase I/II, multiple-dose, dose-escalation study of siltuximab, an anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I/II study evaluated safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of escalating, multiple doses of siltuximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibody derived from a new Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line in patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the phase I dose-escalation cohorts, 20 patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors received siltuximab 2.8 or 5.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 11 or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously (i.v.). In the phase I expansion (n = 24) and phase II cohorts (n = 40), patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma-2 (KRAS)-mutant tumors, ovarian, pancreatic, or anti-EGF receptor (EGFR) refractory/resistant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal, or H&N cancer received 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The phase II primary efficacy endpoint was complete response, partial response, or stable disease >6 weeks. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (35 colorectal, 29 ovarian, 9 pancreatic, and 11 other) received a median of three (range, 1-45) cycles. One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at 5.5 mg/kg. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were hepatic function abnormalities (15%), physical health deterioration (12%), and fatigue (11%). Ten percent of patients had siltuximab-related grade ≥3 adverse events. Neutropenia (4%) was the only possibly related adverse event grade ≥3 reported in >1 patient. Serious adverse events were reported in 42%; most were related to underlying disease. The pharmacokinetic profile of CHO-derived siltuximab appears similar to the previous cell line. No objective responses occurred; 5 of 84 patients had stable disease >6 weeks. Hemoglobin increased ≥1.5 g/dL in 33 of 47 patients. At 11 and 15 mg/kg, completely sustained C-reactive protein suppression was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Siltuximab monotherapy appears to be well tolerated but without clinical activity in solid tumors, including ovarian and KRAS-mutant cancers. The recommended phase II doses were 11 and 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Phase 2 trial results with the novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial evaluated the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate in combination with ondansetron/dexamethasone (ond/dex) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC (N=723) were randomized to receive either oral placebo or casopitant at doses of 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg daily (on Days 1-3) plus ondansetron (on Days 1-3) and dexamethasone (Day 1). Two exploratory arms evaluated single-dose casopitant (150 mg) plus ond/dex and a 3-day casopitant regimen with once-daily ondansetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoints were rates of complete response (CR) (no vomiting, retching, rescue therapy, or premature discontinuation) and significant nausea (SN) (>or=25 mm on a visual analog scale) over the first 120 hours after Cycle 1 of MEC. Secondary endpoints included acute and delayed CR and SN rates, rates of nausea, vomiting, and safety. RESULTS: All casopitant doses that were tested significantly increased the proportion of patients with CR: The CR rates were 80.8% with casopitant 50 mg, 78.5% with casopitant 100 mg, and 84.2% with casopitant 150 mg compared with 69.4% in the control group (P=.0127); casopitant 150 mg was identified as the minimally effective dose. In exploratory analyses, single-dose casopitant demonstrated a 79.2% CR rate, and once-daily ondansetron plus casopitant produced an 83.5% CR rate. Vomiting rates in the first 5 days after MEC were reduced with casopitant-containing regimens (from 23% to 10%-16%). Rates of SN did not differ among treatment arms (range, 28%-29%). Casopitant appeared to be well tolerated with no notable differences in overall adverse event frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Casopitant plus ond/dex was more effective than ond/dex alone for the prevention of CINV.

Role of initial NSAID choice and patient risk factors in the prevention of NSAID gastropathy: a decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of initial nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) choice in the prevention of NSAID gastropathy, based on relative clinical and economic effects. METHODS: To mimic clinical practice, a symptom-driven decision analytic model was constructed to compare 2 treatment strategies for long-term users of NSAIDs over a 1-year period: Strategy 1-generic NSAID used initially, and safer, more expensive NSAID reserved for treatment failures due to symptomatic gastropathy; and Strategy 2-safer, more expensive NSAID used in all instances. The only distinction between the strategies was the choice of initial NSAID. NSAIDs differed in gastrointestinal safety profiles and acquisition costs. The use and impact of antisecretory medications were included in the model. Because published data on patients' ulcer risk and relative NSAID safety show considerable variability, sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the key clinical outcomes and costs. RESULT: For patients without risk factors for NSAID ulcers (average risk), the model estimated that the strategy restricting use of the safer NSAID resulted in more symptomatic ulcers (Strategy 1, 2.58; Strategy 2, 0.73) and ulcer-related complications (Strategy 1, 1.18; Strategy 2, 0.23) per 100 patient years. The restricted strategy led to a significantly lower cost per patient treated (Strategy 1, $239; Strategy 2, $831 per year). In the principal analysis, the incremental costs to prevent symptomatic and complicated ulcers were $31,900 and $56,700, respectively. The estimated incremental cost per ulcer avoided was sensitive to the relative protection provided by the safer NSAID and fell dramatically as the patients' ulcer risk was increased above average risk. CONCLUSION: Unrestricted use of NSAIDs that reduce the risk of symptomatic ulcers has the potential to produce important clinical benefits at incremental cost. The impressive impact of ulcer risk on the incremental cost per ulcer prevented warrants increased attention to risk factor identification when NSAIDs are prescribed.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of therapy for psoriasis with a methotrexate-based regimen versus a rotation regimen of modified cyclosporine and methotrexate.

BACKGROUND: Because health care resources are limited, therapeutic regimens should be assessed for their relative costs and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We assessed cost-effectiveness for treating psoriasis using two strategies: one consisted principally of methotrexate and the other was principally a rotational schedule of modified cyclosporine (Neoral) with methotrexate. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a computerized decision analytic model of simulated patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with one of the two strategies. Direct costs included acquisition of medications, laboratory and physician fees, and costs of treating side effects. Because of uncertainty regarding rates of clearing of psoriasis, the relative efficacy of methotrexate and cyclosporine was varied over a wide range in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In the base case over a 10-year treatment period, the methotrexate strategy cost $33,000 and provided approximately 2 years clear of psoriasis compared with $38,000 and approximately 4 years clear of psoriasis for the rotational strategy. When the relative effectiveness of cyclosporine to methotrexate in clearing psoriasis varied from approximately 1 to 20, the rotational strategy cost from $4100 to $2700 per incremental clear year. CONCLUSION: In selecting therapies for psoriasis patients, both costs and effectiveness should be considered. In this simulation, patients could obtain additional periods clear of psoriasis at an incremental cost by using cyclosporine in rotation with methotrexate. If even a small utility gain accompanies the complete clearing of psoriasis, such a strategy may be a worthwhile investment of resources comparable to other healthcare interventions.