Omalizumab improves sleep and health status for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: An analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have high incidence of sleep impairment. We evaluated the impact of omalizumab treatment on sleep characteristics and associated health status in patients with CRSwNP. METHODS: Prespecified exploratory analysis assessed outcomes from patients included in the POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 phase 3 clinical trials and the open-label extension. Sleep was assessed by the sleep domain of the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22; MCID > 4 in patients with CRS) and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-Sleep). Health status was assessed by Healthy Days Core Module (HDCM) and sinonasal-specific Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: Omalizumab improved sleep as assessed by the SNOT-22 sleep domain. At week 24, adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -8.5 (-9.9 to -7.1) with omalizumab versus -2.7 (-4.1 to -1.3) with placebo. At week 52 (all patents on OMA), adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -10.1 (-11.4 to -8.7) with omalizumab. Improvements were observed in all eight items of the SNOT-22 sleep domain: difficulty falling asleep, fatigue, frustration/restlessness/irritability, lack good night's sleep, reduced concentration, reduced productivity, wake up tired, and wake up at night. In addition, omalizumab improved six of eight sleep outcomes on the MOS-Sleep scale. There were concurrent improvements in HDCM and PGIC. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab improved sleep and self-reported health status in patients with CRSwNP. This contributes to evidence that omalizumab provides value for patients beyond the reduction of sinonasal symptoms.

Omalizumab improves sinonasal outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of allergic status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often have atopic comorbidities, including elevated IgE levels and comorbid asthma. Omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody, is an effective treatment for CRSwNP, but the impact of allergy or asthma status on response to omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of allergy and asthma status on omalizumab treatment in patients with CRSwNP, this posthoc exploratory analysis assessed sinonasal outcomes from subgroups of patients included in POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the open-label extension (OLE) trials. METHODS: Patients (N = 249) were grouped by the presence/absence of comorbid allergy (≥ 1 physician-reported allergic rhinitis, allergic sinusitis, food allergy, or atopic dermatitis), presence/absence of comorbid asthma, baseline serum total IgE (≥ 150 or <150 IU/mL), and baseline blood eosinophil levels (>300 or ≤ 300 cells/µL). Sinonasal outcomes were the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22. RESULTS: During POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the OLE, omalizumab treatment improved the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 score in patients with/without physician-reported allergic comorbidities, with/without asthma, with higher/lower total IgE levels, and with higher/lower blood eosinophil counts. In the OLE, the pattern of improvement was similar in patients who continued or switched to omalizumab. CONCLUSION: In patients with CRSwNP, omalizumab improved sinonasal outcomes independent of allergic status, which suggests that a wide range of patients with different endotypes and phenotypes of CRSwNP may benefit from omalizumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03280550, NCT03280537, NCT03478930.

Exploring the relationship between Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Objective Response Rate (ORR) in patients with advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE: From 2011 to 2016, 13 randomized clinical trials with active controls were submitted to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced melanoma. While regular approval is generally granted due to a substantial improvement in overall survival (OS), or a large, clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), accelerated approval can be granted based on incremental change in a surrogate end point reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, such as objective response (ORR) of large magnitude and long duration. However, the relationship between objective response rate and progression free survival or objective response rate and overall survival in advanced melanoma has not been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted analyses to assess the correlation of objective response rate with progression free survival as well as overall survival by examining all advanced melanoma trials submitted to the FDA between 2011 and 2016. In order to examine these relationships, associations between trial-level hazard ratio (HR) of progression free survival, hazard ration of survival and odds ratio of objective response rate were analyzed using a weighted linear regression model. Patient-level responder analyses comparing progression free survival and overall survival between patients with and without an objective response were performed using pooled data from all studies. RESULTS: In the trial-level analysis, the linear relationships between progression free survival and objective response rate, and overall survival and objective response rate were weak (R²adj = 0.019 and 0.093, respectively). The linear relationship between overall survival and progression free survival (R²adj = 0.075) was also weak. In the patient-level responder analyses, patients who achieved a response had better progression free survival and overall survival compared with non-responders in both the control drug treatment and the experimental drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Based on this analysis, use of objective response rate as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival or progression free survival in this population appears not appropriate. However, due to the nature of heterogeneity, interpretation needs to be cautious.

Safety and efficacy of nazartinib (EGF816) in adults with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to first-generation and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is mediated by the emergence of the Thr790Met mutation in 50-60% of treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and activity of nazartinib (EGF816), a third-generation EGFR TKI that selectively inhibits EGFR with Thr790Met or activating mutations (or both), while sparing wild-type EGFR, in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC. METHODS: This phase 1 dose-escalation part of an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2 study was conducted at nine academic medical centres located in Europe, Asia, and North America. Patients were included if they were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB-IV EGFR-mutant NSCLC (with varying statuses of EGFR mutation and previous therapy allowed), at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less. Nazartinib (at seven dose levels between 75 mg and 350 mg, in capsule or tablet form) was administered orally, once daily, on a continuous 28-day dosing schedule. A two-parameter Bayesian logistic regression model, guided by the escalation with overdose control principle, was implemented to make dose recommendations and estimate the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose of nazartinib (the primary outcome). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02108964); enrolment to phase 1 is complete and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: By Aug 31, 2017, 180 patients (116 [64%] women; median age 60 years (52-69); 116 [64%] with ECOG performance status 1) received nazartinib across seven dose levels: 75 mg (n=17), 100 mg (n=38), 150 mg (n=73), 200 mg (n=8), 225 mg (n=28), 300 mg (n=5), and 350 mg (n=11). Seven dose-limiting toxicities were observed in six (3%) patients who received 150 mg, 225 mg, or 350 mg nazartinib once daily. Although the maximum tolerated dose was not met, the recommended phase 2 dose was declared as 150 mg once daily (tablet). The most common adverse events, regardless of cause, were rash (all subcategories 111 [62%] patients, maculopapular rash 72 [40%], dermatitis acneiform 22 [12%]), diarrhoea (81 [45%]), pruritus (70 [39%]), fatigue (54 [30%]), and stomatitis (54 [30%]), and were mostly grades 1-2. Any-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 99 (55%) patients across all doses, the most common being rash (all subcategories grouped 27 [15%]), pneumonia (12 [7%]), anaemia (ten [6%]), and dyspnoea (nine [5%]). Serious adverse events suspected to be drug-related occurred in 16 (9%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Nazartinib has a favourable safety profile, with low-grade skin toxicity characterised by a predominantly maculopapular rash that required minimal dose reductions. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.