Tepotinib plus osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer with MET amplification following progression on first-line osimertinib (INSIGHT 2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib have few treatment options. Here, we report the primary analysis of the phase 2 INSIGHT 2 study evaluating tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, combined with osimertinib in this population. METHODS: This open-label, phase 2 study was conducted at 179 academic centres and community clinics in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC of any histology, with MET amplification by tissue biopsy fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH; MET gene copy number of ≥5 or MET-to-CEP7 ratio of ≥2) or liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (MET plasma gene copy number of ≥2·3), following progression on first-line osimertinib. Patients received oral tepotinib 500 mg plus oral osimertinib 80 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed objective response in patients with MET amplification by central FISH treated with tepotinib plus osimertinib with at least 9 months of follow-up. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one study drug dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03940703 (enrolment complete). FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2020, and Nov 4, 2022, 128 patients (74 [58%] female, 54 [42%] male) were enrolled and initiated tepotinib plus osimertinib. The primary activity analysis population included 98 patients with MET amplification confirmed by central FISH, previous first-line osimertinib and at least 9 months of follow-up (median 12·7 months [IQR 9·9-20·3]). The confirmed objective response rate was 50·0% (95% CI 39·7-60·3; 49 of 98 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were peripheral oedema (six [5%] of 128 patients), decreased appetite (five [4%]), prolonged electrocardiogram QT interval (five [4%]), and pneumonitis (four [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (13%) patients. Deaths of four (3%) patients were assessed as potentially related to either trial drug by the investigator due to pneumonitis (two [2%] patients), decreased platelet count (one [1%]), respiratory failure (one [1%]), and dyspnoea (one [1%]); one death was attributed to both pneumonitis and dyspnoea. INTERPRETATION: Tepotinib plus osimertinib showed promising activity and acceptable safety in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib, suggesting a potential chemotherapy-sparing oral targeted therapy option that should be further investigated. FUNDING: Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945).

INSIGHT 2: a phase II study of tepotinib plus osimertinib in MET-amplified NSCLC and first-line osimertinib resistance.

MET amplification (METamp), a mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, occurs in up to 30% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing on first-line osimertinib. Combining osimertinib with a MET inhibitor, such as tepotinib, an oral, highly selective, potent MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may overcome METamp-driven resistance. INSIGHT 2 (NCT03940703), an international, open-label, multicenter phase II trial, assesses tepotinib plus osimertinib in patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC and acquired resistance to first-line osimertinib and METamp, determined centrally by fluorescence in situ hybridization (gene copy number ≥5 and/or MET/CEP7 ≥2) at time of progression. Patients will receive tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus osimertinib 80 mg once-a-day. The primary end point is objective response, and secondary end points include duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Trial registration number: NCT03940703 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Osimertinib is used to treat a type of lung cancer that has specific changes (mutations) in a gene called EGFR. Although tumors will usually shrink (respond) during treatment with osimertinib, they can stop responding, or become resistant, to osimertinib. A common cause of resistance is 'MET amplification', which describes when extra copies of a gene called MET are present. Lung cancer that is resistant to osimertinib due to MET amplification could be treated by combining osimertinib with a treatment that blocks MET, such as tepotinib. INSIGHT 2 is an ongoing study that is designed to learn about the effects and safety of tepotinib combined with osimertinib, in patients with lung cancer that has stopped responding to osimertinib because of MET amplification. A plain language version of this article is available and is published alongside the paper online: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2021-1406.

Health-related quality of life trajectory of treatment-naive patients with Merkel cell carcinoma receiving avelumab.

Aim: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a Phase II trial (NCT02155647) of treatment-naive patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with avelumab (15-month follow-up). Materials & methods: Mixed-effect Models for Repeated Measures were applied to HRQoL data (FACT-M; EQ-5D-5L) to assess changes over time. Clinically derived progression-free survival was compared with HRQoL deterioration-free survival. Results: Overall, we saw relative stability in HRQoL among 116 included patients, with nonprogression associated with statistically and clinically meaningful better HRQoL compared with progressive disease. Deterioration-free survival rates (49-72% at 6 months, 40-58% at 12 months) were consistently higher/better compared with progression-free survival rates (41/31% at 6/12 months). Conclusion: These findings show unique longitudinal HRQoL data for treatment-naive metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma patients treated with avelumab. Clinical trial registration: NCT02155647 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Avelumab versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Lung 200): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 or PD-L1 have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with NSCLC who had already received platinum-based therapy. METHODS: JAVELIN Lung 200 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 173 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 31 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC and disease progression after treatment with a platinum-containing doublet, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, an estimated life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with a stratified permuted block method with variable block length, to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1% of tumour cells), which was measured with the 73-10 assay, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed when roughly 337 events (deaths) had occurred in the PD-L1-positive population. Efficacy was analysed in all PD-L1-positive patients (ie, PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of tumour cells) randomly assigned to study treatment (the primary analysis population) and then in all randomly assigned patients through a hierarchical testing procedure. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02395172. Enrolment is complete, but the trial is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2015, and Jan 23, 2017, 792 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive avelumab (n=396) or docetaxel (n=396). 264 participants in the avelumab group and 265 in the docetaxel group had PD-L1-positive tumours. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, median overall survival did not differ significantly between the avelumab and docetaxel groups (11·4 months [95% CI 9·4-13·9] vs 10·3 months [8·5-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·90 [96% CI 0·72-1·12]; one-sided p=0·16). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 251 (64%) of 393 avelumab-treated patients and 313 (86%) of 365 docetaxel-treated patients, including grade 3-5 events in 39 (10%) and 180 (49%) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (six patients [2%]) and increased lipase (four [1%]) in the avelumab group and neutropenia (51 [14%]), febrile neutropenia (37 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil counts (36 [10%]) in the docetaxel group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (9%) patients in the avelumab group and 75 (21%) in the docetaxel group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) participants in the avelumab group, two due to interstitial lung disease, one due to acute kidney injury, and one due to a combination of autoimmune myocarditis, acute cardiac failure, and respiratory failure. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 (4%) patients in the docetaxel group, three due to pneumonia, and one each due to febrile neutropenia, septic shock, febrile neutropenia with septic shock, acute respiratory failure, cardiovascular insufficiency, renal impairment, leucopenia with mucosal inflammation and pyrexia, infection, neutropenic infection, dehydration, and unknown causes. INTERPRETATION: Compared with docetaxel, avelumab did not improve overall survival in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1-positive NSCLC, but had a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck and Pfizer.

IncobotulinumtoxinA Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment for Upper Facial Lines: Results From an Open-Label Extension Period of a Phase III Study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, different upper facial areas are commonly treated together. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of upper facial lines (UFL) in a 3-month open-label extension (OLEX) period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the main study period (randomized, double blind, placebo controlled; n = 156), subjects with moderate-to-severe UFL (glabellar frown lines [GFL], horizontal forehead lines [HFL], and lateral periorbital lines [LPL]) on the 5-point Merz Aesthetics Scales (MAS) received 54 to 64 U incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo. In the OLEX, all subjects (n = 139) received 1 treatment with 54 to 64 U incobotulinumtoxinA. Investigator- and subject-assessed MAS scores were evaluated at rest and maximum contraction. Response was defined either as a MAS score of "none" or "mild" or a ≥1-point improvement in MAS scores. RESULTS: A clear, rapid treatment response was seen in each individual treated area and for all areas combined. At Day 30, a response of none or mild at maximum contraction (investigator's rating) was reported for 80.1%, 77.2%, and 66.9% of subjects for GFL, HFL, and LPL, respectively. IncobotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated, with no evidence of an increase in adverse events with repeat injection. CONCLUSION: IncobotulinumtoxinA is highly effective for the simultaneous treatment of UFL with a good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2011-005887-20).

Treatment effectiveness in a rare oncology indication: Lessons from an external control cohort study.

Real-world data (RWD) reflecting patient treatment in routine clinical practice can be used to develop external control groups for single-arm trials. External controls can provide valuable benchmark results on potential comparator drug effectiveness, particularly in rare indications when randomized controlled trials are either infeasible or unethical. This paper describes lessons learned from a descriptive real-world external control cohort study conducted to provide benchmark data for a single-arm clinical trial in a rare oncology biomarker driven disease. Conducting external control cohort studies to evaluate treatment effectiveness in rare indications likely will present data and analysis challenges as seen in the example study. However, there are mitigating measures that can be applied in the study design, identification of RWD sources, and data analysis. The lessons learned and reported here with a proposal of an external control study framework can provide guidance for future research in this area, and may be applicable as well in other rare indications. Taking these learnings into consideration, the use of real-world external controls to contextualize treatment effectiveness in rare indications is a valuable approach and warrants further application in the future.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neramexane in patients with moderate to severe subjective tinnitus.

BACKGROUND: Neramexane is a new substance that exhibits antagonistic properties at α9α10 cholinergic nicotinic receptors and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, suggesting potential efficacy in the treatment of tinnitus. METHODS: A total of 431 outpatients with moderate to severe subjective tinnitus (onset 3-18 months before screening) were assigned randomly to receive either placebo or neramexane mesylate (25 mg/day, 50 mg/day and 75 mg/day) for 16 weeks, with assessment at 4-week intervals. The primary (intention-to-treat) efficacy analysis was based on the change from baseline in Week 16 in the total score of the adapted German short version of the validated Tinnitus Handicap Inventory questionnaire (THI-12). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the largest improvement was achieved in the 50 mg/d neramexane group, followed by the 75 mg/d neramexane group. This treatment difference did not reach statistical significance at the pre-defined endpoint in Week 16 (p = 0.098 for 50 mg/d; p = 0.289 for 75 mg/d neramexane), but consistent numerical superiority of both neramexane groups compared with placebo was observed. Four weeks after the end of treatment, THI-12 scores in the 50 mg/d group were significantly better than those of the controls. Secondary efficacy variables supported this trend, with p values of < 0.05 for the 50 mg/d neramexane group associated with the functional-communicational subscores of the THI-12 and the assessments of tinnitus annoyance and tinnitus impact on life as measured on an 11-point Likert-like scale. No relevant changes were observed for puretone threshold, for tinnitus pitch and loudness match, or for minimum masking levels. The 25 mg/d neramexane group did not differ from placebo. Neramexane was generally well tolerated and had no relevant influence on laboratory values, electrocardiography and vital signs. Dizziness was the most common adverse event and showed a clear dose-dependence. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and tolerability of neramexane treatment in patients with moderate to severe tinnitus. The primary efficacy variable showed a trend towards improvement of tinnitus suffering in the medium- and high-dose neramexane groups. This finding is in line with consistent beneficial effects observed in secondary assessment variables. These results allow appropriate dose selection for further studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00405886.

Phase 1 study of M2698, a p70S6K/AKT dual inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PI3K/AKT/mTOR (PAM) pathway is a key regulator of tumor therapy resistance. We investigated M2698, an oral p70S6K/AKT dual inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer who failed standard therapies. METHODS: M2698 was administered as monotherapy (escalation, 15-380 mg daily; food effect cohort, 240-320 mg daily) and combined with trastuzumab or tamoxifen. RESULTS: Overall, 101 patients were treated (M2698, n = 62; M2698/trastuzumab, n = 13; M2698/tamoxifen, n = 26). Patients were predominantly aged < 65 years, were female, had performance status 1 and were heavily pretreated. There was a dose- and concentration-dependent inhibition of pS6 levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and tumor tissue. M2698 was well tolerated; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal, abnormal dreams and fatigue (serious, attributed to M2698: monotherapy, 8.1%; M2698/trastuzumab, 7.7%; M2698/tamoxifen, 11.5% of patients). The recommended phase 2 doses of M2698 were 240 mg QD (monotherapy), 160 mg QD (M2698/trastuzumab) and 160 mg QD/240 mg intermittent regimen (M2698/tamoxifen). In the monotherapy cohort, 27.4% of patients had stable disease at 12 weeks; no objective response was noted. The median progression-free survival (PFS) durations in patients with PAM pathway alterations with and without confounding markers (KRAS, EGFR, AKT2) were 1.4 months and 2.8 months, respectively. Two patients with breast cancer (M2698/trastuzumab, n = 1; M2698/tamoxifen, n = 1) had partial response; their PFS durations were 31 months and 2.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: M2698 was well tolerated. Combined with trastuzumab or tamoxifen, M2698 demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to multiple standard therapies, suggesting that it could overcome treatment resistance. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01971515. Registered October 23, 2013.

First-line avelumab in a cohort of 116 patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (JAVELIN Merkel 200): primary and biomarker analyses of a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Avelumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)) is approved in multiple countries for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC), a rare and aggressive skin cancer. We report efficacy and safety data and exploratory biomarker analyses from a cohort of patients with mMCC treated with first-line avelumab in a phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive mMCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was durable response, defined as objective response (complete or partial response; assessed by independent review) lasting ≥6 months. Additional assessments included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: In 116 patients treated with avelumab, median follow-up was 21.2 months (range: 14.9-36.6). Thirty-five patients had a response lasting ≥6 months, giving a durable response rate of 30.2% (95% CI: 22.0% to 39.4%). The objective response rate was 39.7% (95% CI: 30.7% to 49.2%). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI: 1.4 to 6.1) and median OS was 20.3 months (95% CI: 12.4 to not estimable). Response rates were numerically higher in patients with PD-L1+ tumors, Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV)-negative tumors, and tumors with increased intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density. Exploratory analyses did not identify a biomarker that could reliably predict a response to first-line treatment with avelumab; however, a novel gene expression signature to identify the presence of MCPyV+ tumors was derived. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) occurred in 94 (81.0%) patients, including grade 3/4 events in 21 (18.1%) patients; no treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: In patients with mMCC, first-line treatment with avelumab led to responses in 40% and durable responses in 30%, and was associated with a low rate of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events.

Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: long-term data and biomarker analyses from the single-arm phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer associated with a high risk of metastasis. In 2017, avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)) became the first approved treatment for patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC), based on the occurrence of durable responses in a subset of patients. Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety data and exploratory biomarker analyses in patients with mMCC treated with avelumab. METHODS: In a cohort of this single-arm, phase 2 trial (JAVELIN Merkel 200), patients with mMCC and disease progression after prior chemotherapy received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Other assessments included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), safety and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: As of 14 September 2018, 88 patients had been followed up for a median of 40.8 months (range 36.4-49.7 months). The ORR was 33.0% (95% CI 23.3% to 43.8%), including a complete response in 11.4% (10 patients), and the median duration of response was 40.5 months (95% CI 18.0 months to not estimable). As of 2 May 2019 (≥44 months of follow-up), the median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI 7.5 to 17.1 months) and the 42-month OS rate was 31% (95% CI 22% to 41%). Of long-term survivors (OS >36 months) evaluable for PD-L1 expression status (n=22), 81.8% had PD-L1+ tumors. In exploratory biomarker analyses, high tumor mutational burden (≥2 non-synonymous somatic variants per megabase) and high major histocompatibility complex class I expression (30% of tumors with highest expression) were associated with trends for improved ORR and OS. In long-term safety assessments (≥36 months of follow-up), no new or unexpected adverse events were reported, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab showed continued durable responses and meaningful long-term survival outcomes in patients with mMCC, reinforcing avelumab as a standard-of-care treatment option for this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02155647.

Peak inspiratory flow rates generated through the Novolizer and the Turbuhaler dry powder inhaler devices by children with stable asthma.

We compared the peak inspiratory flows (PIF) generated through a novel dry powder inhaler device, the Novolizer (PIF-N), and the Turbuhaler (PIF-T). Forty-six pediatric patients with stable bronchial asthma were randomized in an open-label, multicenter, crossover trial. No drug was administered during the inhalation maneuvers that were spaced by 10 min. There was neither a carryover nor a sequence effect. The patients were characterized by mean age of 8.5 years, mean FEV(1) of 1.79 L, and mean PIF without any device (baseline, PIF-B) of 185 L/min. Through the devices mean PIF-N of 94 L/min and mean PIF-T of 69 L/min were achieved, calculated from the maxima of three inhalations. This resulted in p < 0.0001 for the difference. The median PIFN/PIF-T ratio was estimated as 1.39. Each child achieved a higher PIF-N than PIF-T and was able to release the feedback mechanisms of the Novolizer indicating sufficient inhalation performance. We conclude that the PIF through the Novolizer is higher than the PIF through the Turbuhaler in stable asthmatic children. The flow rates achieved through the Novolizer allow for sufficient lung deposition even in children as young as 6 years.

Azelastine eye drops in the treatment of perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) is a selective H1-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of other mediators of allergic inflammation. The present double-blind study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops (Allergodil) in patients with perennial allergic conjunctivitis compared to placebo. A total of 116 patients with an ocular symptoms score for itching and conjunctival redness > or = 3 (0-6 scale) were randomized to twice-daily 0.05% azelastine eye drops treatment (n = 58) or placebo. Patients maintained daily logs and were clinically evaluated after 7, 21 and 42 days of treatment. Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness versus placebo (p < 0.001). Tolerability was rated good or better by 97% of patients with only bitter taste and application site reaction notable adverse experiences. On Day 7, ocular symptoms score improved by 1.5 +/- 0.9 (versus 0.5 +/- 0.8 placebo) with score improvement > or = 2 in 55% with azelastine (versus 14% placebo). Itching and redness further improved at Day 42 (score improvement > or = 2 in 95% with azelastine versus 33% placebo) and completely resolved for 47% azelastine patients (versus 10% placebo). Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in patients with moderate to severe perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Continued improvement with prolonged use is consistent with mechanisms other than H1-receptor blockade, such as possible down regulation of adhesion molecule receptors.