A post-hoc pooled analysis to evaluate the risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus 100 U/mL (Gla-100) over wider nocturnal windows in individuals with type 2 diabetes on a basal-only insulin regimen.

The EDITION trials in type 2 diabetes demonstrated comparable glycaemic control with less nocturnal and anytime (24-hour) hypoglycaemia for insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). However, the predefined nocturnal window (0:00-5:59 AM) may not be the most relevant for clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis compared expansions of the predefined nocturnal interval during basal insulin treatment without prandial insulin. Patient-level, 6-month data, pooled from the EDITION 2 and 3 trials and the EDITION JP 2 trial (N = 1922, basal insulin only) were analysed. Accompanying hypoglycaemia during treatment with Gla-300 was compared to that during treatment with Gla-100, using predefined (0:00-5:59 AM) and expanded (10:00 PM-5:59 AM, 0:00-7:59 AM, 10:00 PM to pre-breakfast SMPG) windows. Confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic events were reported most frequently between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Windows expanded beyond 6:00 AM included more events than other windows. The percentage of participants with at least one event was lower with Gla-300 than Gla-100 in all windows examined. Expanding the nocturnal interval allows better assessment of the risk of hypoglycaemia associated with basal insulin. The risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was consistently lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 using all four windows.

Quality Tolerance Limits: Framework for Successful Implementation in Clinical Development.

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E6(R2) (International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised guideline: integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 2016. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf . Accessed 5 Dec 2019) introduced Quality Tolerance Limits (QTLs) to the industry, and in doing so, modernized quality control for clinical trials. QTLs provide measured feedback on clinical trial parameters previously only used by statistical and clinical functions to track trial progress toward endpoints. Elevating these measures as part of the Quality Management System (QMS) provides greater visibility across clinical trial functions and the enterprise as well as to measures that are important indicators of the state of participant protection and reliability of trial results. In support of this new requirement, TransCelerate developed a framework to guide industry sponsors and their agents in implementing QTLs. This QTL Framework is intended to aid industry's ability to improve the quality of clinical research through the implementation of QTLs in a way that helps protect trial participants and reliability of trial results while meeting Health Authority (HA) expectations. The framework is intended to maximize efficiency and minimize confusion in the implementation of QTLs. The framework includes proposed approaches for implementation of QTLs for a clinical trial as defined in Section 5.0.4 and 5.0.7 of ICH E6(R2) (International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised guideline: integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 2016. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf . Accessed 5 Dec 2019) and considerations for setting thresholds.

Historical Benchmarks for Quality Tolerance Limits Parameters in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use updated its efficacy guideline for good clinical practice and introduced quality tolerance limits (QTLs) as a quality control in clinical trials. Previously, TransCelerate proposed a framework for QTL implementation and parameters. Historical data can be important in helping to determine QTL thresholds in new clinical trials. METHODS: This article presents results of historical data analyses for the previously proposed parameters based on data from 294 clinical trials from seven TransCelerate member companies. The differences across therapeutic areas were assessed by comparing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and oncology trials using a separate dataset provided by Medidata. RESULTS: TransCelerate member companies provided historical data on 11 QTL parameters with data sufficient for analysis for parameters. The distribution of values was similar for most parameters with a relatively small number of outlying trials with high parameter values. Medidata provided values for three parameters in a total of 45 AD and oncology trials with no obvious differences between the therapeutic areas. CONCLUSION: Historical parameter values can provide helpful benchmark information for quality control activities in future trials.

The effect of concomitant DPPIVi use on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes: A patient-level meta-analysis of EDITION 2 and 3.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of concomitant dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor (DPPIVi) use on efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral antihyperglycaemic drugs. METHODS: A post hoc patient-level meta-analysis was performed using data from EDITION 2 (basal insulin [N = 811]) and EDITION 3 (insulin-naïve [N = 878]), multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trials of similar design. Endpoints analysed included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and adverse events, investigated in subgroups of participants with and without concomitant DPPIVi use. RESULTS: Of 1689 participants randomised, 107 (13%, Gla-300) and 133 (16%, Gla-100) received DPPIVi therapy. The least squares mean change in HbA1c (baseline to month 6) was comparable between treatment groups, irrespective of DPPIVi use (no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect across subgroups, p = 0.753), although group sizes were unbalanced. The cumulative mean number of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic events, and the risk and annualised rate of such events, were consistently lower for Gla-300 than Gla-100 during the night (between 00:00 and 05:59 h) or at any time of day (24 h period), irrespective of DPPIVi use. Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in 8/838 and 10/844 participants in the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups, respectively, and was not affected by DPPIVi use. The adverse event profile was similar between treatment groups and DPPIVi subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control with Gla-300 was comparable to Gla-100, with less hypoglycaemia during the night and at any time of day (24 h), irrespective of concomitant DPPIVi use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01499095; NCT01676220.

Time course of safety and efficacy of aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on previous oxaliplatin-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously-treated with oxaliplatin benefit significantly from the addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI in relation to overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The results for efficacy and safety over the time course of the VEGF Trap (aflibercept) with irinotecan in colorectal cancer after failure of oxaliplatin regimen trial were analysed based on data from 1226 patients randomised to receive FOLFIRI plus either aflibercept (n=612) or placebo (n=614). Hazard ratios (HR) by 6-month time period were estimated using a piecewise Cox proportional hazard model. Severity of adverse events (AEs) was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria, version 3.0. RESULTS: The estimated probabilities of survival were 38.5% versus 30.9% at 18 months, 28.0% versus 18.7% at 24 months and 22.3% versus 12.0% at 30 months, for the aflibercept- and placebo-treated arms, respectively. The proportional improvement in the HR over time was consistent with the survival probability results; survival at 24 months was improved by 50% and almost doubled at 30 months. The majority of worst-grade AEs occurred within the first four cycles of treatment and in a small percent of treatment cycles and were mostly reversible. Common chemotherapy- and anti-vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF)-associated AEs occurred rarely and in a small proportion of cycles with the majority being of single occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI showed a continued and persistent improvement in overall survival over time in patients with mCRC. Although grade 3-4 AEs were more frequent in the aflibercept arm, they occurred in early treatment cycles and decreased sharply following initial presentation.

Aflibercept versus placebo in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan in the treatment of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: prespecified subgroup analyses from the VELOUR trial.

PURPOSE: The antiangiogenic agent aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept in the United States) in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved survival in a phase III study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. In the present analysis, outcomes were evaluated in prespecified subgroups to assess the consistency of the treatment effect. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive FOLFIRI plus aflibercept or placebo every 2weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed with respect to demographic and baseline characteristics, and stratification factors (prior bevacizumab treatment and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status). RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS, months [95.34% confidence interval (CI)]) for aflibercept versus placebo was 12.5 (10.8-15.5) versus 11.7 (9.8-13.8) in patients with prior bevacizumab treatment and 13.9 (12.7-15.6) versus 12.4 (11.2-13.5) in patients with no prior bevacizumab treatment. The p value for interaction was 0.5668, indicating there was no heterogeneity in these subgroups. For OS and progression-free survival (PFS), there was a significantly greater benefit (at the 2-sided 10% level) of treatment for patients with liver only metastases versus patients with no liver metastases/liver metastases with other organ involvement (p value for interaction: 0.0899 [OS]; 0.0076 [PFS]). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect in any of the other subgroups examined. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin were maintained across the specified patient subgroups, including in patients with or without prior bevacizumab treatment.

SERENADE: the Study Evaluating Rimonabant Efficacy in Drug-naive Diabetic Patients: effects of monotherapy with rimonabant, the first selective CB1 receptor antagonist, on glycemic control, body weight, and lipid profile in drug-naive type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the glucose-lowering efficacy and safety of rimonabant monotherapy in drug-naive type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Study Evaluating Rimonabant Efficacy in Drug-Naive Diabetic Patients (SERENADE) was a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg/day rimonabant in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (A1C 7-10%). The primary end point was A1C change from baseline; secondary end points included body weight, waist circumference, and lipid profile changes. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were randomly assigned; 278 were exposed to treatment, and 236 (84.9%) completed the study. Baseline A1C (7.9%) was reduced by -0.8% with rimonabant versus -0.3% with placebo (Delta A1C -0.51%; P = 0.0002), with a larger rimonabant effect in patients with baseline A1C >or=8.5% (Delta A1C -1.25%; P = 0.0009). Weight loss from baseline was -6.7 kg with rimonabant versus -2.8 kg with placebo (Delta weight -3.8 kg; P < 0.0001). Rimonabant induced improvements from baseline in waist circumference (-6 vs. -2 cm; P < 0.0001), fasting plasma glucose (-0.9 vs. -0.1 mmol/l; P = 0.0012), triglycerides (-16.3 vs. +4.4%; P = 0.0031), and HDL cholesterol (+10.1 vs. +3.2%; P < 0.0001). Adverse events of interest that occurred more frequently with rimonabant versus placebo were dizziness (10.9 vs. 2.1%), nausea (8.7 vs. 3.6%), anxiety (5.8 vs. 3.6%), depressed mood (5.8 vs. 0.7%), and paresthesia (2.9 vs. 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Rimonabant monotherapy resulted in meaningful improvements in glycemic control, body weight, and lipid profile in drug-naive type 2 diabetic patients. Further ongoing studies will better establish the benefit-to-risk profile of rimonabant and define its place in type 2 diabetes management.