Long-term treatment of older patients with overactive bladder using a combination of mirabegron and solifenacin: a prespecified analysis from the randomized, phase III SYNERGY II study.

AIMS: SYNERGY II was a 12-month phase III trial in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms that investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of mirabegron and solifenacin in comparison with each monotherapy. This analysis evaluated the trial findings using four age subgroups (<65, ≥65, <75, and ≥75 years). METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥18 years with symptoms of "wet" OAB (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 months. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily solifenacin succinate and mirabegron (5 mg/50 mg; combination), solifenacin succinate, or mirabegron (4:1:1). Safety evaluations: treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and electrocardiogram, post-void residual volume, and laboratory assessments. Primary efficacy variables: change from baseline to end of treatment in number of incontinence episodes/24 h and micturitions/24 h. RESULTS: Of 1794 patients (full analysis set), 614 (34.2%) and 168 (9.4%) were ≥65 and ≥75 years old, respectively. Overall, 856 (47.2%) patients experienced ≥1 TEAE. Higher TEAE incidences were typically observed for the combination versus both monotherapies (eg, constipation) and in the older versus younger age groups (eg, urinary tract infection). Increases in mean pulse rate from baseline of >1 bpm were noted in the combination and mirabegron younger age groups only. No clinically significant findings were observed in the other safety parameters. The efficacy variables improved with all treatments and the greatest improvements were typically observed with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination therapy was a well-tolerated and effective treatment for patients with OAB symptoms irrespective of their age.

Mirabegron as Add-On Treatment to Solifenacin in Patients with Incontinent Overactive Bladder and an Inadequate Response to Solifenacin Monotherapy: Responder Analyses and Patient-Reported Outcomes from the BESIDE Study [corrected].

PURPOSE: We investigated improvements in overactive bladder and patient reported outcomes in patients with overactive bladder and refractory incontinence treated with mirabegron 50 mg plus solifenacin 5 mg vs solifenacin 5 or 10 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with overactive bladder who were incontinent despite 4 weeks of single-blind daily solifenacin 5 mg were randomized 1:1:1 to a double-blind daily combination of mirabegron 50 mg/solifenacin 5 mg, or solifenacin 5 or 10 mg for 12 weeks. The mirabegron dose was increased from 25 to 50 mg after week 4. Symptom bother, health related quality of life and patient perception of bladder condition were assessed by OAB-q (Overactive Bladder Questionnaire) and the PPBC (Patient Perception of Bladder Condition) questionnaire, respectively. Responder rates were based on a 50% reduction in daily incontinence, zero incontinence episodes and fewer than 8 micturitions per 24 hours with minimal important differences in OAB-q and PPBC. RESULTS: Overall 2,174 patients with a median age of 59 years were randomized, including 727 to the combination, 728 to solifenacin 5 mg and 719 to solifenacin 10 mg. Symptom bother, total health related quality of life and its subscales (coping, concern and social), and PPBC were significantly improved with combination vs solifenacin monotherapy (p <0.05). The odds of achieving clinically meaningful improvements in incontinence, micturition frequency, symptom bother, health related quality of life and PPBC were significantly higher for combination than solifenacin monotherapy. The odds of becoming continent was 47% and 28% higher for combination vs solifenacin 5 and 10 mg (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.17-1.84, p = 0.001 and OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.02-1.61, p = 0.033, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more patients on the combination achieved clinically meaningful improvements in incontinence and micturition frequency. Improvements were accompanied by similar improvements in PPBC, symptom bother and health related quality of life.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Novel Approach for Endoscopic Management of Duodenal Injury during Perirenal Infected Haematoma Drainage after Shock-Wave Lithotripsy.

Background. Gaining percutaneous access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be complicated with the bowel injury. We report a novel approach of management of duodenal injury complicating percutaneous drainage of infected haematoma after Shock-Wave Lithotripsy (SWL). Case Presentation. A 57-year-old patient with the 15 mm right pelvic kidney stone underwent uneventful SWL. Patient visited emergency department 3 days later with high fever and chills with severe right flank pain. CT urography revealed lower pole kidney injury with signs of infected hematoma due to low attenuation areas but without signs of obstruction or urine leakage. Infected haematoma was drained percutaneously under ultrasound and X-ray control and a pigtail catheter 10 Fr was left beneath the lower pole of the right kidney. Postoperatively duodenal injury was suspected due to amber color, low creatinine, and high bilirubin level in the drainage output. CT demonstrated that the pigtail of the drain had entered the second part of the duodenum. Catheter was withdrawn and defect of the duodenal wall was stapled with four staples endoscopically. After 2 days of fasting patient was allowed to start oral food intake and was discharged on the 5th day. Conclusion. Injury of the duodenum during percutaneous kidney manipulation is an extremely rare complication. Conservative management consisting of endoscopic stapling of the duodenal wall defect is a safe and feasible approach to expediting the recovery of the patient.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Mirabegron and Solifenacin in Combination Compared with Monotherapy in Patients with Overactive Bladder: A Randomised, Multicentre Phase 3 Study (SYNERGY II).

BACKGROUND: The long-term potential of solifenacin and mirabegron combination treatment for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) has not been previously assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets (combination treatment) versus solifenacin or mirabegron monotherapy in patients with OAB over 12 mo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (SYNERGY II) of patients with "wet" OAB symptoms (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 mo. The study was conducted from March 2014 to September 2016; with 1829 patients randomised. The full analysis set was comprised of 1794 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was safety, measured as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was measured as the change from baseline to the end of treatment in the mean number of incontinence episodes/24h and micturitions/24h. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median age was 60 yr (range 19-86 yr) and 1434 patients (80%) were female. Overall, 856 patients (47%) experienced ≥1 TEAE. TEAE frequency was slightly higher in the combination group (596 patients, 49%; mirabegron 126 patients, 41%; solifenacin 134 patients, 44%). Serious TEAEs were reported by 67 patients (3.7%); one was considered possibly treatment-related (mirabegron group, atrial fibrillation). Dry mouth was the most common TEAE (combination 74 patients, 6.1%; solifenacin 18 patients, 5.9%; mirabegron 12 patients, 3.9%). Combination therapy was statistically superior to mirabegron and solifenacin for the number of incontinence episodes (vs mirabegron: adjusted mean difference [AMD] -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1, p=0.002) and micturitions (vs mirabegron: AMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.4, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.1, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination treatment for OAB symptoms was well tolerated over 12 mo and led to efficacy improvements over each monotherapy. This innovative combination is a treatment option that could become widely used in the clinic. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at the safety and efficacy of a combination of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets over 12 mo in patients with the overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms of increased urination frequency, heightened urgency to urinate, and unintentional passing of urine. We compared this treatment with solifenacin succinate 5mg or mirabegron 50mg alone, and found that the combination treatment was well tolerated by patients and led to greater improvements in symptoms. This novel combination could be an improved treatment option in the clinical setting for patients with OAB. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02045862.

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). RESULTS: Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.

Mutation analysis of the BRG1 gene in prostate cancer clinical samples.

Previous studies in hereditary and sporadic prostate cancer have indicated the existence of a tumor suppressor gene in chromosomal region 19p13. The BRG1 gene in this region is one of the possible candidates, based on both the frequency of inactivating mutations in human cancer cell lines, including the prostate cancer cell line DU145, and its functional properties. To our knowledge, no studies have been done to evaluate possible involvement of the BRG1 gene in clinical prostate cancer. To accomplish this, we carried out a complete mutation analysis of all 35 BRG1 exons in tumor and constitutional DNA samples from 21 prostate cancer patients. We report the absence of somatic mutations in the panel of samples employed, but the existence of five germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CpG islands of the BRG1 gene, among them, three novel ones. In conclusion, the study excludes the presence of common BRG1 mutations in prostate cancer.