Relationship between Pulmonary Adverse Events and Everolimus Exposure in Japanese and Non-Japanese Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Oncology Trials.

AIMS: This meta-analysis explores the relationship between the everolimus minimum (Cmin) and maximum (Cmax) exposure and the risk for pulmonary adverse events (AEs) in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients. METHODS: Patient-level data from patients treated with daily everolimus in advanced solid tumor trials were evaluated using a Cox regression model, stratified by cancer type or treatment arm, with log-transformed time-averaged Cmin or Cmax as a time-varying covariate. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between pulmonary AEs and pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: Thirty studies were identified. In the Cmin population (n = 1,962), all-grade pulmonary AE incidence was significantly higher in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients (19.9 vs. 9.4%). Pharmacokinetic parameters were similar between Japanese and non-Japanese patients. A 2-fold increase in everolimus Cmin significantly increased the risk for the first any-grade pulmonary AE in Japanese (risk ratio: 1.824; 95% CI: 1.141-2.918) and non-Japanese patients (risk ratio: 1.406; 95% CI: 1.156-1.710). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for pulmonary AEs is related to everolimus exposure. Local monitoring and reporting differences might account for the significantly higher reported incidence of low-grade everolimus-associated pulmonary AEs in Japanese versus non-Japanese patients. Patients should be carefully monitored for early signs of pulmonary AEs, and appropriate medical management should be implemented.

Everolimus for patients with mantle cell lymphoma refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib: multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.

The multicentre, open-label, two-stage, single-arm, phase 2, PILLAR (PIvotaL Lymphoma triAls of RAD001)-1 study (NCT00702052) assessed the efficacy and safety of everolimus 10 mg/d in adults with confirmed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib who received ≥1 other antineoplastic agent, either separately or in combination with bortezomib. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per investigator review according to the response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled from August 2008-January 2011. Five partial responses were observed (ORR 8·6%; 90% confidence interval [CI] 3·5-17·3%); the study did not meet the prespecified objective of ≥8 objective responses among 57 patients. Median PFS and OS were 4·4 months (95% CI 3·5-6·1) and 16·9 months (95% CI 14·4-29·9), respectively. Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities occurred in 70·7% of patients. Based on laboratory values, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anaemia occurred in 13·8%, 13·8% and 8·6% of patients, respectively. Everolimus demonstrated modest activity and acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with MCL refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib. Future studies evaluating everolimus in a less refractory population or in combination with other targeted therapies in refractory MCL are warranted.

Adjunctive everolimus for children and adolescents with treatment-refractory seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex: post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 EXIST-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy occurs in 70-90% of patients with tuberous sclerosis complex. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive everolimus for treatment-refractory seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in paediatric patients enrolled in the EXIST-3 trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 study. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis focused on paediatric patients (age <18 years) in the EXIST-3 trial, which consisted of baseline (8 weeks), core (18 weeks), and extension phases (≥48 weeks) and was done at 99 centres in 25 countries worldwide. Briefly, patients with tuberous sclerosis complex-associated treatment-refractory seizures, who were receiving a stable dose of one to three antiepileptic drugs, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus (3-7 ng/mL), or high-exposure everolimus (9-15 ng/mL). Following the core phase, patients could enter the extension phase to receive everolimus at a targeted exposure range of 3-15 ng/mL up to 48 weeks after the last patient had completed the core phase. Efficacy endpoints were response rate (≥50% of reduction from baseline in average weekly seizure frequency) and median percentage reduction in seizure frequency during the 12-week maintenance period of the core phase, and at 12-week intervals throughout the extension phase. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01713946. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and May 29, 2015, 299 paediatric patients enrolled in the trial. In the younger subgroup (<6 years; n=104), 34 received placebo, 33 low-exposure everolimus, and 37 high-exposure everolimus; in the older subgroup (≥6 years to <18 years; n=195), 62 received placebo, 63 low-exposure everolimus, and 70 high-exposure everolimus. At the end of the core phase, response rate was higher in the treatment groups than placebo in both the younger subgroup (17·6% [6·8-34·5] for placebo vs 30·3% [95% CI 15·6-48·7; p=0·2245] for low-exposure everolimus vs 59·5% [42·1-75·2; p=0·0003] for high-exposure everolimus) and the older subgroup (12·9% [5·7-23·9] vs 27·0% [16·6-39·7; p=0·0491] vs 30·0% [19·6-42·1; p=0·0179]), as were median reduction in seizure frequency (12·3% [95% CI -10·1 to 24·8] vs 29·3% [95% CI 13·4 to 46·3; p=0·0474] vs 54·7% [43·5 to 73·1; p<0·0001] in younger patients; 13·5% [-3·0 to 26·8] vs 31·0% [16·1 to 42·9; p=0·0128] vs 34·8% [26·7 to 41·3; p=0·0006] in older patients). The efficacy persisted, with sustained seizure reduction after 1 year of treatment across both paediatric subgroups (response rate 48·9% [95% CI 38·1-59·8] for the younger subgroup vs 47·2% [39·3-55·2] for the older subgroup; median percentage reduction in seizure frequency 48·4% [95% CI 34·3-73·6] vs 48·0% [38·2-57·5]). At the cutoff date for the extension phase, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 45 (45%) younger patients (commonly pneumonia [n=16]) and 74 (38%) older patients (commonly pneumonia [n=8] and stomatitis [n=6]). Two deaths (pneumonia, which was suspected to be treatment-related, and sudden unexplained death due to epilepsy) were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive everolimus resulted in sustained reductions in seizure frequency after 1 year and was well tolerated in paediatric patients with treatment-refractory seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Everolimus for treatment-refractory seizures in TSC: Extension of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: EXamining everolimus In a Study of Tuberous sclerosis 3 (EXIST-3) demonstrated significantly reduced seizure frequency (SF) with everolimus vs placebo. In this study, we evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus for tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated treatment-refractory seizures. METHODS: After completion of the core phase, patients could enter an open-label extension phase and receive everolimus (target exposure, 3-15 ng/mL) for ≥48 weeks. Efficacy end points included change from baseline in average weekly SF expressed as response rate (RR, ≥50% reduction) and median percentage reduction (PR). RESULTS: Of 366 patients, 361 received everolimus in core/extension phases. The RR was 31% (95% CI, 26.2-36.1; N = 352) at week 18, 46.6% (95% CI, 40.9-52.5; N = 298) at 1 year, and 57.7% (95% CI, 49.7-65.4; N = 163) at 2 years. Median PR in SF was 31.7% (95% CI, 28.5-36.1) at week 18, 46.7% (95% CI, 40.2-54) at 1 year, and 56.9% (95% CI, 50-68.4) at 2 years. Ninety-five patients (26.3%) discontinued everolimus before 2 years; 103 (28.5%) had <2 years of follow-up at study cutoff, and 40% were exposed to everolimus for ≥2 years. An analysis classifying discontinued patients as nonresponders showed an RR of 30.2% (95% CI, 25.5-35.2; N = 361) at week 18, 38.8% (95% CI, 33.7-44.1; N = 358) at 1 year, and 41% (95% CI, 34.6-47.7; N = 229) at 2 years, suggesting sustained benefit over time. The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) (any cause) was 40.2%, and 13% discontinued because of AEs (pneumonia [1.7%] and stomatitis [1.4%]). Two deaths were suspected to be treatment-related (pneumonia and septic shock). CONCLUSIONS: Sustained reductions in TSC-associated treatment-refractory seizures over time were achieved with adjunctive everolimus. The safety profile was consistent with the core phase with no new safety concerns. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that long-term everolimus therapy reduces SF in patients with TSC-associated treatment-refractory seizures.

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective: A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design: Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions: Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results: A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n = 75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n = 73) or everolimus alone (59%; n = 61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n = 37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n = 30) or capecitabine (29%; n = 30). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.