Idasanutlin plus cytarabine in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: results of the MIRROS trial.

The phase 3 MIRROS (MDM2 antagonist Idasanutlin in Relapsed or Refractory acute myeloid leukemia [AML] for Overall Survival) trial (NCT02545283) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the small-molecule MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. Adults (n = 447) with R/R AML whose disease relapsed or was refractory after ≤2 prior induction regimens as initial treatment or following salvage chemotherapy regimen, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were enrolled regardless of TP53 mutation status and randomly assigned 2:1 to idasanutlin 300 mg or placebo orally twice daily plus cytarabine 1 g/m2 IV on days 1 to 5 of 28-day cycles. At primary analysis (cutoff, November 2019), 436 patients were enrolled, including 355 in the TP53 wild-type intention-to-treat (TP53WT-ITT) population. The primary endpoint, overall survival in the TP53WT-ITT population, was not met (median, 8.3 vs 9.1 months with idasanutlin-cytarabine vs placebo-cytarabine; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.45; P = .58). The complete remission (CR) rate, a key secondary endpoint, was 20.3% vs 17.1% (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.70-2.18). The overall response rate (ORR) was 38.8% vs 22.0% (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.36-3.72). Common any-grade adverse events (≥10% incidence in any arm) were diarrhea (87.0% vs 32.9%), febrile neutropenia (52.8% vs 49.3%), and nausea (52.5% vs 31.5%). In summary, despite improved ORR, adding idasanutlin to cytarabine did not improve overall survival or CR rates in patients with R/R AML.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous rituximab versus intravenous rituximab for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma (SABRINA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous rituximab is the standard of care in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and is administered over 1·5-6 h. A subcutaneous formulation could reduce patients' treatment burden and improve resource utilisation in health care. We aimed to show the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab to intravenous rituximab in follicular lymphoma and to provide efficacy and safety data. METHODS: SABRINA is a two-stage, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 113 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed, previously untreated, CD20-positive grade 1, 2, or 3a follicular lymphoma; Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0-2; bidimensionally measurable disease (by CT or MRI); life expectancy of 6 months or more; adequate haematological function for 28 days or more; and one or more symptoms requiring treatment according to the Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by investigators or members of the research team via a dynamic randomisation algorithm to 375 mg/m2 intravenous rituximab or 1400 mg subcutaneous rituximab, plus chemotherapy (six-to-eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [CHOP] or eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone [CVP]), every 3 weeks during induction, then rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by selected chemotherapy, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and region. The primary endpoint for stage 2 was overall response (ie, confirmed complete response, unconfirmed complete response, and partial response) at the end of induction. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pooled data from stages 1 and 2 are reported on the basis of the clinical cutoff date of the last patient completing the maintenance phase of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01200758; new patients are no longer being recruited, but some patients are still being followed up. FINDINGS: Between Feb 15, 2011, and May 15, 2013, 410 patients were randomly assigned, 205 to intravenous rituximab and 205 to subcutaneous rituximab. Investigator-assessed overall response at the end of induction was 84·9% (95% CI 79·2-89·5) in the intravenous group and 84·4% (78·7-89·1) in the subcutaneous group. The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups (199 [95%] of 210 in the intravenous group vs 189 [96%] of 197 in the subcutaneous group); the frequency of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was also similar (116 [55%] vs 111 [56%]). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 44 patients (21%) in the intravenous group and 52 (26%) in the subcutaneous group. Serious adverse events occurred in 72 patients (34%) in the intravenous group and 73 (37%) in the subcutaneous group. Administration-related reactions occurred in 73 patients (35%) in the intravenous group and 95 (48%) patients in the subcutaneous group (mainly grade 1 or 2 local injection-site reactions). INTERPRETATION: Intravenous and subcutaneous rituximab had similar efficacy and safety profiles, and no new safety concerns were noted. Subcutaneous administration does not compromise the anti-lymphoma activity of rituximab when given with chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Bioequivalence study of fluoxetine hydrochloride in healthy volunteers.

Fluoxetine hydrochloride (CAS 59333-67-4) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) widely used as antidepressant drug. The aim of the present trial was to assess the bioequivalence of a new formulation of the drug (test formulation) as compared to a reference product from the Swiss market. Both drugs were available as 20 mg dispersible tablets. The trial was performed according to a two-period, two-sequence, balanced, randomised, single-dose design with a wash-out phase of at least 56 days. The two formulations were tested in 30 male healthy volunteers. A specific highly sensitive bioassay in tandem mass spectrometry allowed to set the limit of quantification to 100 pg/ml for fluoxetine and norfluoxetine. Average t(max) was 5.4 h for fluoxetine and 71-80 h for norfluoxetine. The peak concentration was on average 14 ng/ml for fluoxetine and 10.5 ng/ml for norfluoxetine. Half-life was on average 48-50 h for fluoxetine and 130-138 h for norfluoxetine. AUC infinity for fluoxetine and norfluoxetine were on average 790 and 2800 ng x ml(-1) x h, respectively. All these figures demonstrate that plasma concentration-time profiles of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine are quite different. Applied statistical tests, suggested by operating guidelines, demonstrated bioequivalence of the test formulation and the reference formulation. The conclusion on bioequivalence was based on both fluoxetine and norfluoxetine results. 90 % confidence Intervals for Cmax, AUCt and AUC infinity (fluoxetine and norfluoxetine) were within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25) and t(max), processed with a non-parametric test, did not show any statistically significant difference between test and reference formulation. Safety and tolerability proved to be similarly good with both test and reference formulation. In conclusion, the present trial has demonstrated bioequivalence of the test and the reference formulation, both consisting of fluoxetine hydrochloride dispersible tablets.