The MSOAC approach to developing performance outcomes to measure and monitor multiple sclerosis disability.

BACKGROUND: The Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Assessments Consortium (MSOAC) was formed by the National MS Society to develop improved measures of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related disability. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the current literature and available data on functional performance outcome measures (PerfOs) and (2) to determine suitability of using PerfOs to quantify MS disability in MS clinical trials. METHODS: (1) Identify disability dimensions common in MS; (2) conduct a comprehensive literature review of measures for those dimensions; (3) develop an MS Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standard; (4) create a database of standardized, pooled clinical trial data; (5) analyze the pooled data to assess psychometric properties of candidate measures; and (6) work with regulatory agencies to use the measures as primary or secondary outcomes in MS clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Considerable data exist supporting measures of the functional domains ambulation, manual dexterity, vision, and cognition. A CDISC standard for MS ( http://www.cdisc.org/therapeutic#MS ) was published, allowing pooling of clinical trial data. MSOAC member organizations contributed clinical data from 16 trials, including 14,370 subjects. Data from placebo-arm subjects are available to qualified researchers. This integrated, standardized dataset is being analyzed to support qualification of disability endpoints by regulatory agencies.

Azacitidine improves clinical outcomes in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia with myelodysplasia-related changes compared with conventional care regimens.

BACKGROUND: Compared with World Health Organization-defined acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) not otherwise specified, patients with AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) are generally older and more likely to have poor-risk cytogenetics, leading to poor response and prognosis. More than one-half of all older (≥65 years) patients in the phase 3 AZA-AML-001 trial had newly diagnosed AML-MRC. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes for patients with AML-MRC treated with azacitidine or conventional care regimens (CCR; induction chemotherapy, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care only) overall and within patient subgroups defined by cytogenetic risk (intermediate or poor) and age (65-74 years or ≥75 years). The same analyses were used to compare azacitidine with low-dose cytarabine in patients who had been preselected to low-dose cytarabine before they were randomized to receive azacitidine or CCR (ie, low-dose cytarabine). RESULTS: Median overall survival was significantly prolonged with azacitidine (n = 129) versus CCR (n = 133): 8.9 versus 4.9 months (hazard ratio 0.74, [95%CI 0.57, 0.97]). Among patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, median overall survival with azacitidine was 16.4 months, and with CCR was 8.9 months (hazard ratio 0.73 [95%CI 0.48, 1.10]). Median overall survival was significantly improved for patients ages 65-74 years treated with azacitidine compared with those who received CCR (14.2 versus 7.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.64 [95%CI 0.42, 0.97]). Within the subgroup of patients preselected to low-dose cytarabine before randomization, median overall survival with azacitidine was 9.5 months versus 4.6 months with low-dose cytarabine (hazard ratio 0.77 [95%CI 0.55, 1.09]). Within the low-dose cytarabine preselection group, patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics who received azacitidine had a median overall survival of 14.1 months versus 6.4 months with low-dose cytarabine, and patients aged 65-74 years had median survival of 14.9 months versus 5.2 months, respectively. Overall response rates were similar with azacitidine and CCR (24.8% and 17.3%, respectively), but higher with azacitidine versus low-dose cytarabine (27.2% and 13.9%). Adverse events were generally comparable between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Azacitidine may be the preferred treatment for patients with AML-MRC who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy, particularly patients ages 65-74 years and those with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicalTrials.gov on February 16, 2010 ( NCT01074047 ).

Achievement of red blood cell transfusion independence in red blood cell transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes correlates with serum erythropoietin levels.

In the randomized, phase 3, MDS-005 study (NCT01029262), lenalidomide-induced red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC-TI) in 27% of transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. To determine the influence of erythropoietin (EPO) level on response, 155 patients treated with lenalidomide in MDS-005 were categorized into four groups by baseline EPO level. The EPO >500 mU/mL group had higher RBC transfusion burden and the lowest proportion of patients with ring sideroblasts ≥15% versus lower EPO groups. Achievement of RBC-TI ≥8 weeks inversely correlated with EPO level, ranging from 42.5 to 15.5%. EPO level did not affect erythroid hematologic improvement response (36.2-44.4%). This analysis suggests patients with lower EPO levels experience the strongest benefit from lenalidomide. Although meaningful improvements were observed in some patients with EPO level >500 mU/mL, new treatments are needed for this population.

Clinical Benefit-Risk Profile of Lenalidomide in Patients With Lower-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Without del(5q): Results of a Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III MDS-005 study of patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes, lenalidomide was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 8 weeks red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC-TI) compared with placebo, but also with a higher risk of hematologic adverse events (AEs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis evaluated the ratio of clinical benefit-risk in patients treated with lenalidomide or placebo, and assessed the effect of lenalidomide dose reductions on response. Clinical benefit was a composite endpoint defined as RBC-TI, transfusion reduction ≥ 4 units packed red blood cells, hemoglobin increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL, or cytogenetic response. RESULTS: The rate of clinical benefit was higher with lenalidomide than with placebo (31.9% vs. 3.8%). The ratio of response (RBC-TI and clinical benefit) to risk (hematologic AEs) favored lenalidomide over placebo. Patients who underwent ≥ 1 lenalidomide dose reduction had a longer duration of treatment, received a higher cumulative dose, and were more likely to experience clinical benefit versus patients without dose reductions. CONCLUSION: Despite the occurrence of hematologic AEs, the overall benefit-risk profile supported lenalidomide treatment. Appropriate management of hematologic AEs by dose reductions may help patients with myelodysplastic syndromes to remain on treatment and achieve clinical benefit.

Effects of a NR2B selective NMDA glutamate antagonist, CP-101,606, on dyskinesia and Parkinsonism.

Glutamate antagonists decrease dyskinesia and augment the antiparkinsonian effects of levodopa in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD). In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we investigated the acute effects of placebo and two doses of a NR2B subunit selective NMDA glutamate antagonist, CP-101,606, on the response to 2-hour levodopa infusions in 12 PD subjects with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Both doses of CP-101,606 reduced the maximum severity of levodopa-induced dyskinesia approximately 30% but neither dose improved Parkinsonism. CP-101,606 was associated with a dose-related dissociation and amnesia. These results support the hypothesis that glutamate antagonists may be useful antidyskinetic agents. However, future studies will have to determine if the benefits of dyskinesia suppression can be achieved without adverse cognitive effects.

Incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events and related hospitalization are reduced with azacitidine compared with conventional care regimens in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Relative risks of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and related hospitalization is most accurate when accounting for treatment exposure. AZA-AML-001 showed azacitidine (AZA) prolonged overall survival versus conventional care regimens (CCR) in older patients (≥65 years) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) by 3.9 months. Preselection of CCR before study randomization allows evaluation of AZA safety in patient subgroups with similar clinical features. Within preselection groups, AZA exposure was greater than each CCR. Incidence rates (IRs; numbers of events normalized for drug exposure time) of hospitalizations and days in hospital for TEAEs per patient-year of exposure were to varying degrees lower with AZA versus each CCR. Overall survival was significantly prolonged with AZA versus best supportive care (BSC) in AZA-AML-001; this analysis showed 55% and 41% reductions in IRs of TEAE-related hospitalization and days in hospital, respectively, with AZA versus BSC. Older patients with AML unable to tolerate intensive therapy should be offered active low-intensity treatment.

The effect of the selective NMDA receptor antagonist traxoprodil in the treatment of traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major public health problem, and there is a great medical need for a pharmacological treatment that could improve long-term outcome. The excitatory neurotransmitter, glutamate, has been implicated in processes leading to neurodegeneration. Traxoprodil (CP-101,606) is a novel and potent glutamate receptor antagonist that is highly selective for the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor; it has been shown to be neuroprotective in animal models of brain injury and ischemia. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was therefore conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a 72-h infusion of traxoprodil compared to placebo in subjects with computed tomography scan evidence of severe TBI (GCS 4-8). A total of 404 males and non-pregnant females, aged 16-70, were treated within 8 h of injury. At baseline, subjects were stratified by motor score severity. The results showed that a greater proportion of the traxoprodil-treated subjects had a favorable outcome on the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scale (dGOS) at 6 months (delta 5.5%, OR 1.3, p = 0.21, 95% CI:[0.85, 2.06]) and at last visit (delta 7.5%, OR 1.47, p = 0.07, 95% CI:[0.97, 2.25]). The mortality rate with traxoprodil treatment was 7% less than with placebo treatment (OR 1.45, p = 0.08, 95% CI:[0.96, 2.18]). Differences between treatment groups were more pronounced in the severest subset (delta 11.8% for the dGOS at last visit and delta 16.6% for mortality). Traxoprodil was well tolerated. Although these results are intriguing, no definitive claim of efficacy can be made for traxoprodil for the treatment of severe TBI.

Adjunctive therapy with pregabalin in generalized anxiety disorder patients with partial response to SSRI or SNRI treatment.

This study evaluated the efficacy of adjunctive pregabalin versus placebo for treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) who had not optimally responded to previous or prospective monotherapies. This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients diagnosed with GAD who had a historical and current lack of response to pharmacotherapy [Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) of ≥ 22 at screening] were randomized to adjunctive treatment with either pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the change in HAM-A total scores after 8 weeks of combination treatment. Adverse events were regularly monitored. Randomized patients (N=356) were treated with pregabalin (n=180) or placebo (n=176). Mean baseline HAM-A scores were 20.7 and 21.4, respectively. After treatment, the mean change in HAM-A was significantly greater for pregabalin compared with placebo (-7.6 vs. -6.4, respectively; P<0.05). HAM-A responder rates (≥ 50% reduction) were significantly higher for pregabalin (47.5%) versus placebo (35.2%; P=0.0145). The time-to-sustained response favored pregabalin over placebo (P=0.014). Adverse events were consistent with previous studies and discontinuations were infrequent for pregabalin (4.4%) and placebo (2.3%). The study was discontinued early after an interim analysis. The results indicate that adjunctive pregabalin is an efficacious therapy for patients with GAD who experience an inadequate response to established treatments.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin versus lamotrigine in patients with newly diagnosed partial seizures: a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Efficacious and safe monotherapy options are needed for adult patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. As an adjunctive treatment for partial seizures, pregabalin compares favourably with lamotrigine and is an effective, approved treatment. We studied the efficacy and safety of pregabalin as monotherapy, using a design that complied with European regulatory requirements and International League Against Epilepsy guidelines. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin and lamotrigine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial seizures at 105 centres, mostly in Europe and Asia. Randomisation to treatment groups (1:1 ratio) was by a computer-generated pseudorandom code (random permuted blocks), with patients sequentially assigned numbers by telephone. Investigators, site staff, and patients were masked to the assigned treatment. After randomisation, patients were titrated to either 75 mg oral pregabalin or 50 mg oral lamotrigine twice daily during a 4-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 52-week efficacy assessment phase during which the daily dose could be increased as needed to a maximum of 600 mg and 500 mg, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who remained seizure-free for 6 or more continuous months during the efficacy assessment phase; analysis included all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment groups and received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00280059. FINDINGS: 660 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (330 pregabalin, 330 lamotrigine), of whom 622 entered the efficacy assessment phase (314 pregabalin, 308 lamotrigine). Fewer patients in the pregabalin group than in the lamotrigine group became seizure-free for 6 or more continuous months (162 [52%] vs 209 [68%]; difference in proportion, -0·16, 95% CI -0·24 to -0·09). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups and consistent with that in previous studies; dizziness (55 [17%] vs 45 [14%] patients), somnolence (29 [9%] vs 14 [4%]), fatigue (27 [8%] vs 19 [6%]), and weight increase (21 [6%] vs 7 [2%]) were numerically more common in the pregabalin group than in the lamotrigine group. INTERPRETATION: Pregabalin has similar tolerability but seems to have inferior efficacy to lamotrigine for the treatment of newly diagnosed partial seizures in adults. Inferior efficacy of pregabalin might have been attributable to limitations in the study design, as treatment doses might have not been optimised adequately or early enough. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.