Health-related quality-of-life impact of pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in previously systemically treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: KEYNOTE-240.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure and prognostic indicator in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) assessed the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib. This study presents the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its HCC supplement (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) electronically at baseline; at weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18; and then every 9 weeks until 1 year or end of treatment, and at the 30-day safety follow-up visit. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 271 and 127 patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. From baseline to week 12, changes in both scores were similar between pembrolizumab and placebo; global health status/QoL scores were stable. The proportions of patients who improved, remained stable, or deteriorated across all functional domain and symptom scores were generally similar between pembrolizumab and placebo. Time to deterioration was similar between the 2 arms based on the prespecified analysis of EORTC QLQ-HCC18 domains of abdominal swelling, fatigue, and pain. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab preserved HRQoL during treatment for advanced HCC. Combined with efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-240, these findings support a positive benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab in a second-line treatment setting for patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib.

Elbasvir-Grazoprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Persons Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in persons who inject drugs (PWID). Objective: To evaluate elbasvir-grazoprevir in treating HCV infection in PWID. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105688). Setting: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients: 301 treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection who were at least 80% adherent to visits for opioid agonist therapy (OAT). Intervention: The immediate-treatment group (ITG) received elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks; the deferred-treatment group (DTG) received placebo for 12 weeks, no treatment for 4 weeks, then open-label elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks. Measurements: The primary outcome was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), evaluated separately in the ITG and DTG. Other outcomes included SVR24, viral recurrence or reinfection, and adverse events. Results: The SVR12 was 91.5% (95% CI, 86.8% to 95.0%) in the ITG and 89.5% (95% CI, 81.5% to 94.8%) in the active phase of the DTG. Drug use at baseline and during treatment did not affect SVR12 or adherence to HCV therapy. Among 18 patients with posttreatment viral recurrence through 24-week follow-up, 6 had probable reinfection. If the probable reinfections were assumed to be responses, SVR12 was 94.0% (CI, 89.8% to 96.9%) in the ITG. One patient in the ITG (1 of 201) and 1 in the placebo-phase DTG (1 of 100) discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Limitation: These findings may not be generalizable to PWID who are not receiving OAT, nor do they apply to persons with genotype 3 infection, a common strain in PWID. Conclusion: Patients with HCV infection who were receiving OAT and treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir had high rates of SVR12, regardless of ongoing drug use. These results support the removal of drug use as a barrier to interferon-free HCV treatment for patients receiving OAT. Primary Funding Source: Merck & Co.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. METHODS: T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied. RESULTS: LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Asian Patients in the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: KEYNOTE-240 investigated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Results for the subgroup of patients from Asia are described. METHODS: Adults with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus BSC. Here, the Asian subgroup comprised patients enrolled in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded central imaging review and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per blinded central imaging review, duration of response (DOR), and safety. RESULTS: The Asian subgroup included 157 patients. As of January 2, 2019, the median follow-up in this subgroup was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 8.3 months for placebo. The median PFS was 2.8 months for pembrolizumab (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-4.1) versus 1.4 months (95% CI 1.4-2.4) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.70). The median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI 10.1-16.9) for pembrolizumab versus 8.3 months (95% CI 6.3-11.8) for placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.80). ORR was 20.6% (95% CI 13.4-29.5) for pembrolizumab versus 2.0% (95% CI 0.1-10.6) for placebo (difference: 18.5%; 95% CI 8.3-27.6). The median DOR was 8.6 and 2.8 months for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. Any grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 63 patients (58.9%) receiving pembrolizumab and 24 patients (48.0%) receiving placebo; 14 (13.1%) and 2 (4.0%) patients experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and was well tolerated in the Asian subgroup of KEYNOTE-240. A trend toward greater benefit with pembrolizumab in the Asian subgroup was observed compared with the overall cohort, supporting further evaluation of pembrolizumab treatment in this population.

Assessment of Pembrolizumab Therapy for the Treatment of Microsatellite Instability-High Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Among Patients in the KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Immunotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes among patients who have received previous treatment for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab therapy vs chemotherapy among patients with MSI-H advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-059 (third-line treatment or higher) single-arm trial and the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 (second-line treatment) and KEYNOTE-062 (first-line treatment) randomized trials included patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer from 52 sites in 16 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-059, 148 sites in 30 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-061, and 200 sites in 29 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-062. Patients were enrolled from March 2, 2015, to March 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-059; from June 4, 2015, to July 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-061; and from September 18, 2015, to May 26, 2017, in KEYNOTE-062, with data cutoff dates of August 8, 2018; October 26, 2017; and March 26, 2019; respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy in KEYNOTE-059, pembrolizumab monotherapy or chemotherapy (paclitaxel) in KEYNOTE-061, and pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), or chemotherapy alone in KEYNOTE-062. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response was assessed centrally using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), version 1.1; MSI-H status was determined centrally by polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 7 of 174 patients (4.0%) in KEYNOTE-059, 27 of 514 patients (5.3%) in KEYNOTE-061, and 50 of 682 patients (7.3%) in KEYNOTE-062 had MSI-H tumors. Among those with MSI-H tumors, the median overall survival was not reached (NR) for pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 or for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-062. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for pembrolizumab was NR (95% CI, 1.1 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-059 and 17.8 months (95% CI, 2.7 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-061 (vs 3.5 months [95% CI, 2.0-9.8 months] for chemotherapy). In KEYNOTE-062, the median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 1.5 months to NR) for pembrolizumab, NR (95% CI, 3.6 months to NR) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) for chemotherapy. The objective response rate (ORR) for pembrolizumab was 57.1% in KEYNOTE-059 and 46.7% (vs 16.7% for chemotherapy) in KEYNOTE-061. In KEYNOTE-062, the ORR was 57.1% for pembrolizumab , 64.7% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 36.8% for chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings from this study indicate that MSI-H status may be a biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy among patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583.

Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS: Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

Flushing profile of extended-release niacin/laropiprant at initiation of therapy in Asian lipid clinic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Niacin is underutilized due to flushing, which occurs in over 90% of niacin-treated patients. Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces flushing associated with niacin. This study compared flushing with a combination tablet of extended-release (ER) niacin (ERN)/LRPT to niacin ER (N-ER; without LRPT) during the first week of therapy among patients in Asia. METHODS: Following a 1-week placebo run-in, 332 patients with dyslipidemia from China, Korea and Singapore were randomized to ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, N-ER 1 g (given as Niaspan(R)) or placebo in a 2:2:1 ratio for 1 week. Patient-reported flushing severity was assessed using the Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS; none/mild = 0-3; moderate = 4-6; severe = 7-9; extreme = 10). RESULTS: Compared with N-ER, the ERN/LRPT group experienced significantly less flushing (p < 0.001), as measured by maximum GFSS categorized as none/mild, moderate, severe or extreme. Overall, 23.8% of patients in the ERN/LRPT group and 50.0% in the N-ER group (p < 0.001), versus 12.1% in the placebo group, had moderate or greater flushing (GFSS > or =4). Except for flushing, which occurred more frequently in the N-ER group, ERN/LRPT had a safety/tolerability profile similar to that of N-ER. CONCLUSION: ERN/LRPT produced significantly less flushing than N-ER during the initiation of therapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients with dyslipidemia.

A cross-sectional study of bone turnover markers in healthy premenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Biochemical markers of bone turnover (BTMs) provide useful information in the diagnosis and management of metabolic bone diseases. Currently, there exist few published reference ranges for bone markers in healthy premenopausal women using the newer, automated assays of bone turnover. This cross-sectional study of healthy premenopausal women was performed to determine reference ranges for four different markers of bone turnover and to compare reference ranges in users and non-users of oral contraceptives (OCs). METHODS: Urinary N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen (NTX) was determined from fasting second morning-void urine of healthy premenopausal women. In addition, fasting serum was collected for determination of C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). Subjects underwent central dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and completed a questionnaire regarding medical history and activities known to affect bone health. RESULTS: Serum and urine samples were collected from 237 healthy premenopausal women (119 OC users and 118 non-users) between the ages of 28 and 45 years. The mean age of subjects was 37 years, with a mean bone mineral density T-score of -0.1 at the lumbar spine and 0.0 at the total hip. Logarithmic transformation produced normal distributions for all markers but NTX. Mid-95% ranges for each marker were generally consistent with those reported by manufacturers. For each BTM examined, values were skewed toward the lower end of the range. Median NTX levels for OC users and non-users were 16.0 and 29.0 nmol/mmol creatinine, respectively. The mid-95% ranges for NTX in OC users and non-users were 3-60 and 4-64 nmol/mmol creatinine, respectively. Median levels of CTX, bone ALP, and PINP were also lower in OC users than non-users. The mean level of each BTM was significantly lower in OC users than non-users (P<0.01), whereas reference ranges (geometric mean+/-2 SD) were somewhat similar for the two groups. CONCLUSION: Values obtained from this well-characterized population provide reference ranges for BTMs in healthy premenopausal women. Median and mean BTM levels for OC users were consistently lower compared with non-users; thus, separate reference ranges are required for these two groups of premenopausal women. The relevance of premenopausal reference ranges for postmenopausal women remains uncertain.

Comparison of weekly treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with alendronate versus risedronate over two years.

OBJECTIVE: A 1-yr extension of the Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trial was completed to compare changes in bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability over 2 yr of treatment. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind extension conducted at 72 U.S. sites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 1053 women who completed yr 1, 833 postmenopausal women with low BMD entered the extension, continuing their same treatment allocation [once-weekly (OW) alendronate 70 mg or OW risedronate 35 mg]. Changes in BMD at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine and in markers of bone turnover were compared at 24 months. Tolerability was assessed by adverse experience reporting. RESULTS: Alendronate produced greater increases from baseline in BMD at 24 months than did risedronate at the trochanter (alendronate, 4.6%; risedronate, 2.5%, P < 0.001) as well as at all other BMD sites. Significantly more alendronate than risedronate patients had measured BMD increases of 0% or more and 3% or more at all BMD sites (P < 0.001), and fewer alendronate patients had measured decreases of 3% or more at all BMD sites. Significantly greater reductions in all biochemical markers of bone turnover occurred with alendronate, compared with risedronate. No differences were seen in occurrence or discontinuations due to upper gastrointestinal adverse experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving 70 mg OW alendronate had greater gains in BMD, were more likely to maintain or gain BMD, and had greater reductions in bone turnover markers than patients receiving 35 mg OW risedronate after 24 months, with no differences in upper gastrointestinal tolerability.

Treatment with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared with once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized double-blind study.

UNLABELLED: Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-weekly risedronate 35 mg are indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. These two agents were compared in a 12-month head-to-head trial. Greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover were seen with alendronate compared with risedronate with similar tolerability. INTRODUCTION: The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate, are available in once-weekly (OW) formulations for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A 12-month, head-to-head study was performed to compare these agents in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1053 patients from 78 U.S. sites were randomized to OW alendronate 70 mg (N = 520) or risedronate 35 mg (N = 533), taken in the morning after fasting. Endpoints included BMD changes over 6 and 12 months at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (LS); percent of patients with predefined levels of change in trochanter and LS BMD at 12 months; and change in biochemical markers of bone turnover at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by adverse experience (AE) reporting. RESULTS: Significantly greater increases in hip trochanter BMD were seen with alendronate (3.4%) than risedronate (2.1%) at 12 months (treatment difference, 1.4%; p < 0.001) as well as 6 months (treatment difference, 1.3%; p < 0.001). Significantly greater gains in BMD were seen with alendronate at all BMD sites measured (12-month difference: total hip, 1.0%; femoral neck, 0.7%; LS, 1.2%). Significant differences were seen as early as 6 months at all sites. A greater percentage of patients had > or =0% (p < 0.001) and > or =3% (p < 0.01) gain in trochanter and spine BMD at 12 months with alendronate than risedronate. Significantly greater (p < 0.001) reductions in all biochemical markers of bone turnover occurred with alendronate compared with risedronate by 3 months. No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal AEs or AEs causing discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month, head-to-head trial of alendronate and risedronate, given in accordance with the approved OW regimens for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, alendronate produced greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than risedronate. The greater antiresorptive effect of alendronate was seen as early as 3 months, and the tolerability profiles were similar.

Prevalence of Vitamin D inadequacy among postmenopausal North American women receiving osteoporosis therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations and factors related to vitamin D inadequacy in postmenopausal North American women receiving therapy to treat or prevent osteoporosis. METHODS: Serum 25(OH)D and PTH were obtained in 1536 community-dwelling women between November 2003 and March 2004. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for suboptimal (<30 ng/ml) 25(OH)D. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of study subjects were Caucasian, with a mean age of 71 yr. Thirty-five percent resided at or above latitude 42 degrees north, and 24% resided less than 35 degrees north. Mean (sd) serum 25(OH)D was 30.4 (13.2) ng/ml: serum 25(OH)D was less than 20 ng/ml in 18%; less than 25 ng/ml in 36%; and less than 30 ng/ml in 52%. Prevalence of suboptimal 25(OH)D was significantly higher in subjects who took less than 400 vs. 400 IU/d or more vitamin D. There was a significant negative correlation between serum PTH concentrations and 25(OH)D. Risk factors related to vitamin D inadequacy included age, race, body mass index, medications known to affect vitamin D metabolism, vitamin D supplementation, exercise, education, and physician counseling regarding vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of North American women receiving therapy to treat or prevent osteoporosis have vitamin D inadequacy, underscoring the need for improved physician and public education regarding optimization of vitamin D status in this population.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month study of once-weekly alendronate oral solution for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the overall safety and tolerability of once-weekly (OW) alendronate 70 mg oral solution (OS) versus OW placebo OS. METHODS: Postmenopausal, osteoporotic women were enrolled at 51 centers in the United States in a 6-month double-blind, randomized trial. Patients were randomized (1:1) to OW alendronate 70 mg OS or placebo OS. The primary end point was the proportion of patients reporting any upper gastrointestinal (UGI) adverse event (AE) at 6 months. Secondary end points included mean percentage change in urinary N-telopeptide of type I human collagen (NTx) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) at 6 months. RESULTS: Initially, 454 women were enrolled; 392 (86.3%) completed the study. The mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10) years, and the mean (SD) time since menopause was 19.1 (12) years. The proportion of patients experiencing any UGI AE was significantly higher with alendronate OS (23.7%) compared with placebo solution (15.3%), with a treatment difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-15.8%; P = 0.024). The proportion of patients experiencing any esophageal AE was 4.0% with alendronate and 3.0% with placebo (treatment difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.7% to 4.8%]). In addition, 4.5% of alendronate and 8.7% of placebo patients discontinued the study due to any clinical AE, and 3.3% of alendronate and 1.8% of placebo patients discontinued due to a UGI AE (difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -1.5% to 4.4%]). Alendronate OS produced significantly greater reductions in both NTx and BSAP than placebo (differences, -47.5% and -38.7%, respectively [both, P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month study, patients receiving OW alendronate 70 mg OS had a higher rate of UGI AEs than placebo patients. However, rates of serious UGI AEs, discontinuations due to UGI AEs, and esophageal AEs were similar between groups. UGI AEs in the study were generally mild to moderate in severity and did not result in treatment discontinuation. In addition, OW alendronate 70 mg OS significantly reduced biochemical markers of bone turnover.

Fixed-dose combination ezetimibe+atorvastatin lowers LDL-C equivalent to co-administered components in randomized trials: use of a dose-response model.

Co-administration of ezetimibe with atorvastatin is a generally well-tolerated treatment option that reduces LDL-C levels and improves other lipids with greater efficacy than doubling the atorvastatin dose. The objective of the study was to demonstrate the equivalent lipid-modifying efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) ezetimibe/atorvastatin compared with the component agents co-administered individually in support of regulatory filing. Two randomized, 6-week, double-blind cross-over trials compared the lipid-modifying efficacy of ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 mg (n = 353) or 10/40 mg (n = 280) vs. separate co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 346) or 40 mg (n = 280), respectively, in hypercholesterolemic patients. Percent changes from baseline in LDL-C (primary endpoint) and other lipids (secondary endpoints) were assessed by analysis of covariance; triglycerides were evaluated by longitudinal-data analysis. Expected differences between FDC and the corresponding co-administered doses were predicted from a dose-response relationship model; sample size was estimated given the expected difference and equivalence margins (±4%). LDL-C-lowering equivalence was based on 97.5% expanded confidence intervals (CI) for the difference contained within the margins; equivalence margins for other lipids were not prespecified. Ezetimibe/atorvastatin FDC 10/20 mg was equivalent to co-administered ezetimibe+atorvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL-C levels (54.0% vs. 53.8%) as was FDC 10/40 mg and ezetimibe+atorvastatin 40 mg (58.9% vs. 58.7%), as predicted by the model. Changes in other lipids were consistent with equivalence (97.5% expanded CIs <±3%, included 0); triglyceride changes varied more. All treatments were generally well tolerated. Hypercholesterolemic patients administered ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg FDC had equivalent LDL-C lowering. This FDC formulation proved to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant significantly improves lipid levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of baseline glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: The degree of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may alter lipid levels and may alter the efficacy of lipid-modifying agents. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the lipid-modifying efficacy of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) in subgroups of patients with T2DM with better or poorer glycemic control. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from patients with T2DM who were randomized 4:3 to double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo (n=796), examining the lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT in patients with glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting plasma glucose levels above and below median baseline levels. RESULTS: At Week 12 of treatment, ERN/LRPT significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a), compared with placebo, with equal efficacy in patients above or below median baseline glycemic control. Compared with placebo, over 36 weeks of treatment more patients treated with ERN/LRPT had worsening of their diabetes and required intensification of antihyperglycemic medication, irrespective of baseline glycemic control. Incidences of other adverse experiences were generally low in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT are independent of the degree of baseline glycemic control in patients with T2DM (NCT00485758).

Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and raloxifene 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly (OW) alendronate (ALN) 70 mg and raloxifene (RLX) 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. DESIGN: This 12-month, randomized, double-blind study enrolled 456 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (223 ALN, 233 RLX) at 52 sites in the United States. Efficacy measurements included lumbar spine (LS), total hip, and trochanter bone mineral density (BMD) at 6 and 12 months, biochemical markers of bone turnover, and percent of women who maintained or gained BMD in response to treatment. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline in LS BMD at 12 months. Adverse experiences were recorded to assess treatment safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Over 12 months, OW ALN produced a significantly greater increase in LS BMD (4.4%, P < 0.001) than RLX (1.9%). The percentage of women with > or = 0% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 94%; RLX, 75%; P < 0.001) and > or =3% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 66%; RLX, 38%; P < 0.001) were significantly greater with ALN than RLX. Total hip and trochanter BMD increases were also significantly greater (P < or =0.001) with ALN. Greater (P < 0.001) reductions in N-telopeptide of type I collagen and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase were achieved with ALN compared with RLX at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal or vasomotor adverse experiences were seen. CONCLUSION: ALN 70 mg OW produced significantly greater increases in spine and hip BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than RLX over 12 months. A greater percentage of women maintained or gained BMD on ALN than RLX. Both medications had similar safety and tolerability profiles.

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours.

Response to therapy with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared to once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The FACT study (Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trial) was a 1-year-head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of once weekly (DW) alendronate 70 mg and OW risedronate 35 mg for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The present analysis was performed to determine the percentage of patients who had changes during the study in BMD and biochemical markers (BCMs) of bone turnover above or below specific cut-off points. A subgroup analysis of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability was also performed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 1053 postmenopausal women with low BMD were randomized to alendronate 70 mg OW (N = 520) or risedronate 35 mg OW (N = 533). The percentage of patients who had measured BMD gains > or = 3%, and > or = 5% after 12 months at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (LS) was analyzed. The percentage of patients who experienced any bone loss, and those with measured losses of 3% or more at these sites after 12 months, was determined. The percentage of patients achieving reductions in urinary N-telopeptide of type 1 human collagen (NTX) > or = 40%, and serum C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTx) > or = 60%, bone-specific phosphatase (BSAP) > or = 30%, and N terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (P1NP) > or = 50% at 3 months and 12 months was also determined. Tolerability, based on adverse experience reporting, was evaluated in a subgroup of patients with history of UGI disorders at baseline. RESULTS: A greater percentage of alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients had measured BMD gains (> or = 0%) (p < 0.05) at all sites at 12 months. Significantly more (p < 0.01) alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients had measured gains in BMD > or = 3% and > or = 5% at the hip trochanter, total hip, and LS spine. Significantly more (p < 0.05) risedronate- than alendronate-treated patients had an apparent loss of BMD (> 0% and > or = 3% loss) at the same sites. After 3 months, significantly (p < 0.001) more alendronate- than risedronate- treated patients achieved predefined reductions in all BCMs. Similar tolerability was demonstrated in both treatment groups, regardless of whether or not patients had a history of UGI disorders at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients achieved predefined increases in BMD at 12 months and reductions in BCMs at 3 months. Significantly more risedronate- than alendronate-treated patients were classified as apparent 'non-responders' (i.e. experienced any bone loss) after 12 months of therapy. The tolerability profiles of the two medications were similar.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/ acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of >or= 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (singledose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded. RESULTS: 271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophentreated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [-0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [-1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/ acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.01), and dizziness (p < 0.001).

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant, simvastatin, and the combination on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL cholesterol, and non-HDL cholesterol in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Statins modify correlations between apolipoprotein B (apoB) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apoB and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C); however, it is not known whether niacin-based therapies have similar effects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of extended-release niacin (ERN)/laropiprant (LRPT), simvastatin (SIMVA), and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA (pooled ERN/LRPT + SIMVA) on apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of a 12-week study evaluated the apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients randomized equally to double-blind ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, SIMVA 10, 20, or 40 mg, or ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA (10, 20, or 40 mg) once daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, doses were doubled in all groups except SIMVA 40 mg (unchanged) and ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA 40 mg (switched to ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg + SIMVA 40 mg). Simple linear regression analyses were used to calculate LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels corresponding to known apoB baseline values (ie, in untreated patients) and following treatment. RESULTS: The apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were higher and the predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels for a known apoB value were considerably lower following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA compared with untreated patients at baseline. CONCLUSION: Greater dissociation of apoB, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C targets occur following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA, and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA in patients with dyslipidemia. The achievement of more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy may further reduce coronary risk by normalizing apoB-containing atherogenic lipoproteins.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of co-administered extended release niacin/laropiprant and simvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) reduces flushing and preserves the lipid-modifying effects of ERN. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ERN/LRPT plus simvastatin (ERN/LRPT+SIMVA) with atorvastatin (ATORVA) in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in, 2340 patients (LDL-C ≥ 130 and ≤ 190 mg/dL, TG ≥ 150 and ≤ 500 mg/dL and above NCEP ATP III risk-based LDL-C goal) were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment arms: ERN/LRPT 1g/20mg+SIMVA (10 or 20mg), or ATORVA (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg) once daily. RESULTS: At Week 12, ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was superior to ATORVA in decreasing LDL-C/HDL-C (primary endpoint) at each pre-specified dose comparison: ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 20mg vs. ATORVA 10mg (-13.2%; p<0.001); ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg vs. ATORVA 20mg (-10.8%; p<0.001); ATORVA 40 mg (-5.1%; p<0.001); and ATORVA 80 mg (-4.2%; p=0.007). At Week 12, ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was superior to ATORVA in increasing HDL-C and reducing TG for all pre-specified treatment comparisons, and reducing non-HDL-C and LDL-C for the ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 20mg versus ATORVA 10mg and ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg versus ATORVA 20-mg dose comparisons, but not the ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg versus ATORVA 40- and 80-mg dose comparisons. Adverse experiences (AEs) typically associated with niacin (flushing, pruritus, increased glucose, increased uric acid) were more common with ERN/LRPT+SIMVA, and hepatic-related laboratory AEs were more common with ATORVA. CONCLUSION: ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was generally superior to ATORVA in improving lipid parameters after 12 weeks and was generally well tolerated in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.