Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. METHODS: We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to <10 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, a sustained decrease in eGFR of ≥40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P<0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and others; EMPA-KIDNEY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03594110; EudraCT number, 2017-002971-24.).

Effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease from Japan: exploratory analyses from EMPA-KIDNEY.

BACKGROUND: EMPA-KIDNEY assessed the effects of empagliflozin 10 mg once daily vs. placebo in 6609 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk of progression, including 612 participants from Japan. METHODS: Eligibility required an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 20 < 45; or ≥ 45 < 90 ml/min/1.73m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) of ≥ 200 mg/g. The primary outcome was a composite of kidney disease progression (end-stage kidney disease, a sustained eGFR decline to < 10 ml/min/1.73m2 or ≥ 40% from randomization, or renal death) or cardiovascular death. In post-hoc analyses, we explored the effects of empagliflozin in participants from Japan vs. non-Japan regions, including additional models assessing whether differences in treatment effects between these regions could result from differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Japanese participants had higher levels of albuminuria and eGFR than those from non-Japan regions. During a median of 2.0 year follow-up, a primary outcome occurred in 432 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.64-0.82; P < 0.0001). Among the participants from non-Japan regions, there were 399 vs. 494 primary outcomes (0.75, 0.66-0.86), and 33 vs. 64 (0.49, 0.32-0.75; heterogeneity p = 0.06) in Japan. Results were similar when models explicitly considered treatment interactions with diabetes status, categories of eGFR/uACR, and recruitment in Japan (heterogeneity p = 0.08). Safety outcomes were broadly comparable between the two groups, and by Japanese status. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin safely reduced the risk of "kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death" in patients with CKD, with consistent effects in participants from Japan.

XENERA-1: a randomised double-blind Phase II trial of xentuzumab in combination with everolimus and exemestane versus everolimus and exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and non-visceral disease.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms. CONCLUSIONS: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

EGFR mutation detection in circulating cell-free DNA of lung adenocarcinoma patients: analysis of LUX-Lung 3 and 6.

BACKGROUND: In the Phase III LUX-Lung 3/6 (LL3/LL6) trials in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients, we evaluated feasibility of EGFR mutation detection using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and prognostic and predictive utility of cfDNA positivity (cfDNA+). METHODS: Paired tumour and blood samples were prospectively collected from randomised patients. Mutations were detected using cfDNA from serum (LL3) or plasma (LL6) by a validated allele-specific quantitative real-time PCR kit. RESULTS: EGFR mutation detection rates in cfDNA were 28.6% (serum) and 60.5% (plasma). Mutation detection in blood was associated with advanced disease characteristics, including higher performance score, number of metastatic sites and bone/liver metastases, and poorer prognosis. In patients with common EGFR mutations, afatinib improved progression-free survival vs chemotherapy in cfDNA+ (LL3: HR, 0.35; P=0.0009; LL6: HR, 0.25; P<0.0001) and cfDNA- (LL3: HR, 0.46; P<0.0001; LL6: HR, 0.12; P<0.0001) cohorts. A trend towards overall survival benefit with afatinib was observed in cfDNA+ patients. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma cfDNA is a promising alternative to biopsy for EGFR testing. Detectable mutation in blood was associated with more advanced disease and poorer prognosis. Afatinib improved outcomes in EGFR mutation-positive patients regardless of blood mutation status.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. METHODS: This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3-33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6-12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1-11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57-0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9-15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1-13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. INTERPRETATION: Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. FINDINGS: Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). INTERPRETATION: Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Afatinib versus cisplatin plus pemetrexed in Japanese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring activating EGFR mutations: Subgroup analysis of LUX-Lung 3.

In LUX-Lung 3, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus cisplatin/pemetrexed in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients and overall survival (OS) in Del19 patients. Preplanned analyses in Japanese patients from LUX-Lung 3 were performed. Patients were randomized 2:1 to afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed, stratified by mutation type (Del19/L858R/Other). Primary endpoint was PFS (independent review). Secondary endpoints included OS, objective response, and safety. Median PFS (data cut-off: February 2012) for afatinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed was 13.8 vs 6.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.70; P = 0.0014) in all Japanese patients (N = 83), with more pronounced improvements in those with common mutations (Del19/L858R; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.52; P < 0.0001) and Del19 mutations (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39; P < 0.0001). PFS was also improved in L858R patients (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.25; P = 0.1309). Median OS (data cut-off: November 2013) with afatinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed was 46.9 vs 35.8 months (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40-1.43; P = 0.3791) in all Japanese patients, with greater benefit in patients with common mutations (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.12; P = 0.0966) and Del19 mutations (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87; P = 0.0181); OS was not significantly different in L858R patients (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.40-3.21; P = 0.8212). Following study treatment discontinuation, most patients (93.5%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, nail effects and stomatitis with afatinib and nausea, decreased appetite, neutropenia, and leukopenia with cisplatin/pemetrexed. Afatinib significantly improved PFS versus cisplatin/pemetrexed in Japanese EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma patients and OS in Del19 but not L858R patients (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00949650).

Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib-an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker-improves progression-free survival compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared afatinib with gemcitabine and cisplatin-a chemotherapy regimen widely used in Asia-for first-line treatment of Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was done at 36 centres in China, Thailand, and South Korea. After central testing for EGFR mutations, treatment-naive patients (stage IIIB or IV cancer [American Joint Committee on Cancer version 6], performance status 0-1) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral afatinib (40 mg per day) or intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done centrally with a random number-generating system and an interactive internet and voice-response system. Randomisation was stratified by EGFR mutation (Leu858Arg, exon 19 deletions, or other; block size three). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but the independent central imaging review group were. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01121393. FINDINGS: 910 patients were screened and 364 were randomly assigned (242 to afatinib, 122 to gemcitabine and cisplatin). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the afatinib group (11·0 months, 95% CI 9·7-13·7) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (5·6 months, 5·1-6·7; hazard ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·20-0·39; p<0·0001). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the afatinib group were rash or acne (35 [14·6%] of 239 patients), diarrhoea (13 [5·4%]), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5·4%]), compared with neutropenia (30 [26·5%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19·5%]), and leucopenia (17 [15·0%]) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (6·3%) patients in the afatinib group and nine (8·0%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. INTERPRETATION: First-line afatinib significantly improves progression-free survival with a tolerable and manageable safety profile in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung NSCLC. Afatinib should be considered as a first-line treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Phase II study of Afatinib as third-line treatment for patients in Korea with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer harboring wild-type EGFR.

BACKGROUND: This phase II single-arm trial evaluated afatinib, an irreversible inhibitor of the ErbB receptor family as third-line treatment of Korean patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and tumors with wild-type EGFR. Currently, no standard therapy exists for these patients. METHODS: Eligible patients had stage IIIB/IV wild-type EGFR lung adenocarcinoma and had failed to benefit from two previous lines of chemotherapy but had not received anti-EGFR treatment. Patients received oral afatinib at 40 mg per day until disease progression or occurrence of intolerable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response (OR) rate (confirmed complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR; OR or stable disease for ≥6 weeks), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. RESULTS: Forty-two patients received afatinib treatment, and 38 of those were included in efficacy analyses. No confirmed CRs or PRs were reported. DCR was 24% (9 of 38 patients), with a median disease control duration of 19.3 weeks. Median PFS was 4.1 weeks (95% confidence interval: 3.9-8.0). Frequently reported AEs (mainly grades 1 and 2) were rash/acne (88%), diarrhea (62%), and stomatitis (57%). CONCLUSION: Heavily pretreated patients with wild-type EGFR NSCLC treated with afatinib monotherapy did not experience an objective response and only 24% had disease stabilization lasting more than 6 weeks. AEs were manageable and consistent with the expected safety profile.

Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations.

PURPOSE: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Characterization of gut microbiomes of household pets in the United States using a direct-to-consumer approach.

The role of gut microbiomes as important regulators of mammalian health is increasingly recognized, although feline and canine gut microbiomes remain poorly characterized. In this proof-of-concept study, we assessed the utility of a direct-to-consumer approach to executing pet microbiome studies. We characterized the gut microbiomes of 238 pets (46 cats and 192 dogs) by generating ~11 million merged reads that were mapped to the V4 region of 16S ribosomal RNA gene at a sequencing depth of 45,806 (±22,325) reads per sample. Analyses of these reads revealed that both feline and canine gut microbiomes are dominated by three major phyla, namely Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Bacteroides and that alpha diversity is higher in the feline gut. In addition to interspecies differences between the feline and canine gut, we also detected appreciable intraspecies bacterial variation within the canine population. While the dogs in this dataset could be assigned to three distinct clusters based on their gut microbiome, no clustering was observed within the feline population. Integration of additional data obtained from survey questionnaires revealed that geography and body weight may be associated with canine gut microbiome composition. Furthermore, we found that both the inter and intraspecies differences are more pronounced at finer taxonomic levels, indicating that strain-level investigations may be necessary in the future. This study demonstrates that the direct-to-consumer approach overcomes existing limitations in pet microbiome research, for example, it allows collection of large numbers of pet samples. The direct-to-consumer approach has proven successful in human genomics as well as human microbiomics and this study demonstrates that by building partnerships with an engaged general public this approach can also propel the field of pet microbiomics forward.

First-line afatinib vs gefitinib for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (LUX-Lung 7): impact of afatinib dose adjustment and analysis of mode of initial progression for patients who continued treatment beyond progression.

PURPOSE: In the randomized phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-treatment failure vs gefitinib in patients with treatment-naïve epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. We report post hoc analyses of tolerability-guided dose adjustment for afatinib and summarize the clinical characteristics of patients who continued afatinib/gefitinib beyond initial radiological progression in LUX-Lung 7. METHODS: Patients received afatinib 40 mg/day or gefitinib 250 mg/day until investigator-assessed progression or beyond if beneficial. In case of selected treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), the afatinib dose could be reduced by 10-mg decrements to minimum 20 mg (only dose interruptions were permitted with gefitinib). RESULTS: All randomized patients were treated (afatinib, n = 160; gefitinib, n = 159). Sixty-three patients had afatinib dose reduction (< 40 mg/day; 47 within first 6 months). Dose reduction decreased TRAE incidence/severity (before vs after; all grade/grade 3: 100.0%/63.5% vs 90.5%/23.8%). There was no evidence of significant difference in PFS for patients who received < 40 mg/day vs ≥ 40 mg/day for the first 6 months [median: 12.8 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.90-2.00)]. Twenty-four and 26 patients continued afatinib and gefitinib, respectively, beyond progression in target lesions; median time from nadir of target lesion diameters to initial progression was 6.7 months and 5.6 months. Of these patients, ~ 70% had objective response or non-complete response/non-progressive disease in non-target lesions at initial progression. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol-defined dose adjustment of afatinib may allow patients to remain on treatment longer, maximizing clinical benefit even in the presence of radiological progression.

Does EGFR Mutation Type Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer? Analysis of Two Large, Phase III Studies Comparing Afatinib with Chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6).

INTRODUCTION: In LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumors harboring common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (Del19/L858R) and significantly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with tumors harboring Del19 mutations. Patient-reported outcomes stratified by EGFR mutation type are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Lung cancer symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) were assessed every 21 days until progression using the EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire C30 and its lung cancer-specific module, LC13. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were prespecified and included analysis of percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change over time. Global health status (GHS)/QoL was also assessed. Analyses were conducted for all patients with tumors harboring Del19 or L858R mutations and were exploratory. RESULTS: Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib more commonly improved symptoms of, delayed time to deterioration for, and was associated with better mean scores over time for cough and dyspnea in patients with Del19 or L858R mutations. All three prespecified analyses of pain showed a trend favoring afatinib over chemotherapy. In both Del19 and L858R mutations, afatinib was also associated with improvements in GHS/QoL. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated statistically significant improvements in GHS/QoL for afatinib over chemotherapy for patients with tumors harboring Del19 mutations or L858R mutations. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest first-line afatinib improved lung cancer-related symptoms and GHS/QoL compared with chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with tumors harboring common EGFR mutations, with benefits in both Del19 and L858R patients. When considered with OS (Del19 patients only) and PFS benefits, these findings substantiate the value of using afatinib over chemotherapy in these patient groups.

Visualizing Internet routing changes.

Today's Internet provides a global data delivery service to millions of end users and routing protocols play a critical role in this service. It is important to be able to identify and diagnose any problems occurring in Internet routing. However, the Internet's sheer size makes this task difficult. One cannot easily extract out the most important or relevant routing information from the large amounts of data collected from multiple routers. To tackle this problem, we have developed Link-Rank, a tool to visualize Internet routing changes at the global scale. Link-Rank weighs links in a topological graph by the number of routes carried over each link and visually captures changes in link weights in the form of a topological graph with adjustable size. Using Link-Rank, network operators can easily observe important routing changes from massive amounts of routing data, discover otherwise unnoticed routing problems, understand the impact of topological events, and infer root causes of observed routing changes.

First-Line Afatinib versus Chemotherapy in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Common Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Gene Mutations and Brain Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. METHODS: For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). RESULTS: In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: In addition to offering favorable pharmaceutical performance, an ideal inhaler should be well accepted by patients, as this may facilitate compliance. We report a study that specifically assessed inhaler preference in patients with obstructive lung disease after treatment with ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide (Berodual delivered via either Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) or hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI). METHODS: Patients with COPD, asthma or mixed disease were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide 20/50 microg via Respimat SMI or 40/100 microg via HFA-MDI for 7 weeks each, in a crossover design. Patients were trained in inhaler use and given < or =5 attempts to demonstrate satisfactory technique. At the end of each treatment period, patients completed a 15-item satisfaction questionnaire, and inhaler technique was re-tested. On study completion, patients were asked which inhaler they preferred and they rated their willingness to continue using each inhaler. Clinical efficacy outcomes were measured by diary card to check whether switching inhaler affected efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 245 patients were randomized and 224 used both inhalers within their respective treatment periods. Of 201 patients expressing a preference, 162 (81%) preferred Respimat SMI and 39 (19%) preferred HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Patients would rather continue using Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Mean scores for 13 of the 15 satisfaction questions were significantly higher for Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.05); in addition, the total score was also significantly higher for Respimat SMI (p < 0.001). Most patients (217/224; 97%) were judged to have good technique with Respimat SMI after 7 weeks' use. Differences in efficacy measures between the devices were not significant. CONCLUSION: These data indicated that a large majority of patients preferred Respimat SMI to HFA-MDI.

Phase II study of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in EGFR FISH-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive advanced lung adenocarcinoma. It is unknown whether such activity also occurs in patients with EGFR gene overexpression, regardless of mutation status. This phase II study investigated the activity and safety of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with increased EGFR gene copy number and/or gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), with or without EGFR mutation. METHODS: EGFR gene overexpression was assessed by FISH analysis; patients with high polysomy or gene amplification were considered FISH positive. Patients received daily afatinib less than or equal to 50 mg (monotherapy). Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR; primary), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 223 patients screened, 69 patients were FISH-positive and met eligibility criteria for treatment. The ORR was 13.0% overall (n =9 of 69). Higher ORRs were observed in patients with gene amplification (20.0%; n =5 of 25) and EGFR mutation-positive tumors (25.0%; n =3 of 12). The DCR was 50.7% overall (n = 35 of 69; median duration: 24.9 weeks) with higher DCRs observed in patients with gene amplification 64.0%; (n = 16 of 25), and in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors 66.7% (n = 8 of 12). In the overall population, median PFS was 8.4 weeks and median OS was 50.4 weeks. The most common afatinib-related adverse events were rash/acne (83%) and diarrhea (78%). CONCLUSIONS: First- or second-line afatinib demonstrated preliminary activity and manageable safety in EGFR FISH-positive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Phase II study of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in demographically and genotypically defined lung adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Other potential biomarkers predicting response to afatinib, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) mutations and EGFR gene amplification, have not been validated yet. This phase II study investigated whether afatinib conferred clinical benefit in cohorts of adenocarcinoma patients with: (1) EGFR mutation and failing on erlotinib/gefitinib; or (2) increased copy number of EGFR by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); or (3) HER2 mutation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients started daily afatinib 50mg monotherapy. Upon disease progression, patients could continue, at the investigator's discretion, afatinib (40mg) with the addition of paclitaxel (80mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks/4-week cycle). Endpoints included confirmed objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control, and safety. RESULTS: Of 41 patients treated (cohort 1: n=32; cohort 2: n=2; cohort 3: n=7), 33 received afatinib monotherapy; eight subsequently received afatinib plus paclitaxel. With afatinib monotherapy, one patient achieved a confirmed OR (partial response [PR]; cohort 2). Two further patients achieved unconfirmed PRs (one each in cohort 1 and cohort 3). Disease control was achieved by 17/32 (53%), 2/2 (100%) and 5/7 (71%) patients in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In patients receiving combination therapy (median PFS: 6.7 weeks), one (cohort 3) had confirmed PR of 41.9 weeks. The most common afatinib-related adverse events were diarrhea (95%) and rash/acne (80%). CONCLUSION: Afatinib demonstrated signs of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with activating HER2 or EGFR mutations or EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of tiotropium bromide (5 µg) inhaled via Respimat in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: A pharmacokinetic study in an Asian population showed that tiotropium 5 µg via Respimat leads to the same plasma levels compared to 18 µg via HandiHaler. The objective of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of longterm treatment (1 year) with tiotropium bromide (5 µg) via Respimat® with placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A total of 3991 patients were randomized in this double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study, while in China 338 patients (309 males, 29 females) received either tiotropium bromide (n = 167) or placebo (n = 171). Tiotropium bromide solution or matching placebo was delivered via Respimat® at a dosage of 5 µg (2×2.5 µg/puff) once daily for 48 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the time to first exacerbation. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 and trough forced vital capacity (FVC) in the tiotropium group were achieved at weeks 4, 24, and 48 compared with those in the placebo group. A statistically significant difference (P = 0.0027) in favour of tiotropium was also observed for the time to first exacerbation. The total numbers of exacerbations during treatment were 90 and 128 in the tiotropium and placebo groups, respectively, with a rate ratio of 0.69 (P = 0.0164). The difference between the treatment groups in the adjusted mean changes from baseline of St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score was -3.9 (95% CI: -7.5, -0.2) and was of statistical significance (P = 0.0367). The incidences of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the tiotropium and placebo groups were 16.2% and 17.0%, respectively. Seven deaths occurred whilst patients were on treatment, four in the tiotropium group and three in the placebo group, all of which were assessed as non-related study drugs by the investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium significantly improved lung function and quality of life, delayed the time to first exacerbation, reduced the number of exacerbations. Overall, tiotropium was well tolerated.