Molecular and clinical predictors of improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta-analysis to better quantify the benefit of maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy to inform practice in platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer for patient subsets with the following characteristics: germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm), somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm), wild-type BRCA but homologous recombinant-deficient (HRD), homologous recombinant-proficient (HRP), and baseline clinical prognostic characteristics. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a PARPi versus placebo as maintenance treatment were identified from electronic databases. Treatment estimates of progression-free survival were pooled across trials using the inverse variance weighted method. RESULTS: Four trials included 972 patients who received a PARPi (olaparib, 31%; niraparib, 35%; or rucaparib, 34%) and 530 patients who received placebo. For patients who had germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCAm1) (N = 471), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.37); for those who had germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm2) (N = 236), the HR was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.17-0.39); and, for those who had sBRCAm (N = 123), the HR was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.41). The treatment effect was similar between the gBRCAm and sBRCAm subsets (P = .48). In patients who had wild-type BRCA HRD tumors (excluding sBRCAm; N = 309), the HR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.56); and, in those who had wild-type BRCA HRP tumors (N = 346), the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.83). The relative treatment effect was greater for the BRCAm versus HRD (P = .03), BRCAm versus HRP (P < .00001), and HRD versus HRP (P < .00001) subsets. There was no difference in benefit based on age, response after recent chemotherapy, and prior bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade ovarian cancer, maintenance PARPi improves progression-free survival for all patient subsets. PARPi therapy has a similar magnitude of benefit for sBRCAm and gBRCAm. Although patients with BRCAm derive the greatest benefit, the absence of a BRCAm or HRD could not be used to exclude patients from maintenance PARPi therapy.

Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

Tolerability of maintenance olaparib in newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation in the randomized phase III SOLO1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III SOLO1 trial (NCT01844986), maintenance olaparib provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who were in response after platinum-based chemotherapy. We analyzed the timing, duration and grade of the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events in SOLO1. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily (N = 260) or placebo (N = 131), with a 2-year treatment cap in most patients. Safety outcomes were analyzed in detail in randomized patients who received at least one dose of study drug (olaparib, n = 260; placebo, n = 130). RESULTS: Median time to first onset of the most common hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (nausea, fatigue/asthenia, vomiting) adverse events was <3 months in olaparib-treated patients. The first event of anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting lasted a median of <2 months and the first event of fatigue/asthenia lasted a median of 3.48 months in the olaparib group. These adverse events were manageable with supportive treatment and/or olaparib dose modification in most patients, with few patients requiring discontinuation of olaparib. Of 162 patients still receiving olaparib at month 24, 64.2% were receiving the recommended starting dose of olaparib 300 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib had a predictable and manageable adverse event profile in the newly diagnosed setting with no new safety signals identified. Adverse events usually occurred early, were largely manageable and led to discontinuation in a minority of patients.

Health-related quality of life and patient-centred outcomes with olaparib maintenance after chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21): a placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21), maintenance therapy with olaparib tablets significantly prolonged progression-free survival (primary endpoint) compared with placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation and platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer who had received two or more lines of previous chemotherapy. The most common subjective adverse effects included fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, which were typically low grade and self-limiting. Our a-priori hypothesis was that maintenance olaparib would not negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and additionally that the prolongation of progression-free survival with olaparib would be underpinned by additional patient-centred benefits. METHODS: In SOLO2, 196 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) and 99 to placebo. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (>6-12 vs >12 months). The prespecified primary HRQOL analysis evaluated the change from baseline in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score during the first 12 months of the study. To be assessable, patients had to have an evaluable score at baseline and at least one evaluable follow-up form. Secondary planned quality-of-life (QOL) analyses included the duration of good quality of life (defined as time without significant symptoms of toxicity [TWiST] and quality-adjusted progression-free survival [QAPFS]). Efficacy and QOL outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set), and safety outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: The adjusted average mean change from baseline over the first 12 months in TOI was -2·90 (95% CI -4·13 to -1·67) with olaparib and -2·87 (-4·64 to -1·10) with placebo (estimated difference -0·03; 95% CI -2·19 to 2·13; p=0·98). Mean QAPFS (13·96 [SD 10·96] vs 7·28 [5·22] months; difference 6·68, 95% CI 4·98-8·54) and mean duration of TWiST (15·03 [SD 12·79] vs 7·70 [6·42] months; difference 7·33, 95% CI 4·70-8·96) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib maintenance therapy did not have a significant detrimental effect on HRQOL compared with placebo. There were clinically meaningful patient-centred benefits in both TWiST and QAPFS despite the adverse effects associated with olaparib. These patient-centred endpoints support the improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint in SOLO2, and should be included in future trials of maintenance therapies. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. METHODS: This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6-12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3-25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2-5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22-0·41], p<0·0001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse severity were anaemia (38 [19%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group vs two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group), fatigue or asthenia (eight [4%] vs two [2%]), and neutropenia (ten [5%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were experienced by 35 (18%) patients in the olaparib group and eight (8%) patients in the placebo group. The most common in the olaparib group were anaemia (seven [4%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2%] patients), and intestinal obstruction (three [2%] patients). The most common in the placebo group were constipation (two [2%] patients) and intestinal obstruction (two [2%] patients). One (1%) patient in the olaparib group had a treatment-related adverse event (acute myeloid leukaemia) with an outcome of death. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib tablet maintenance treatment provided a significant progression-free survival improvement with no detrimental effect on quality of life in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Apart from anaemia, toxicities with olaparib were low grade and manageable. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Extended-release guanfacine hydrochloride in 6-17-year olds with ADHD: a randomised-withdrawal maintenance of efficacy study.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release guanfacine hydrochloride (GXR), a selective α2A-adrenergic agonist, is a nonstimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised-withdrawal study evaluated the long-term maintenance of GXR efficacy in children/adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: Children/adolescents (6-17 years) with ADHD received open-label GXR (1-7 mg/day). After 13 weeks, responders were randomised to GXR or placebo in the 26-week, double-blind, randomised-withdrawal phase (RWP). The primary endpoint was the percentage of treatment failure (≥50% increase in ADHD Rating Scale version IV total score and ≥2-point increase in Clinical Global Impression-Severity compared with RWP baseline, at two consecutive visits). The key secondary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01081145; EudraCT 2009-018161-12. RESULTS: A total of 528 participants enrolled; 316 (59.8%) entered the RWP. Treatment failure occurred in 49.3% of the GXR and 64.9% of the placebo group (p = 0.006). TTF was significantly longer in GXR versus placebo (p = 0.003). GXR was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Guanfacine hydrochloride demonstrated long-term maintenance of efficacy compared with placebo in children/adolescents with ADHD. Implications of the placebo substitution design and findings with different ADHD medications are discussed.

Stress levels experienced by parents of children with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during the back-to-school period: results of a European and Canadian survey.

OBJECTIVE: The back-to-school stress survey was designed to compare stress in parents of children/ adolescents with/without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in six European countries and Canada when children prepare to return to school. METHODS: Parents of children/adolescents (6-17 years) with/without ADHD were recruited and interviewed by a consumer research organization. Parents rated potentially stress-causing situations (both standard and specifically related to the return to school) on a scale from 1 (low stress) to 10 (high stress). Mean scores were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: In Europe, 613/693 (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [7.0]/40.1 [6.9] years) and in Canada, 102/150 (mean [SD] age: 44.4 [8.1]/44.1 [7.2] years) parents of children with/without ADHD, respectively, participated in the survey. Children with ADHD (mean [SD] age: 11.2 [3.2]/12.6 [3.2] years in Europe/Canada) had generally similar characteristics in both samples. Parents in the ADHD group showed higher stress levels than parents in the non-ADHD group in all situations (p < 0.001 for Europe). The return to school was considered one of the most stressful events during the year. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe and Canada, ADHD has a significant impact on parental stress, particularly during the back-to-school period. This can have important implications as parental stress can affect presentation of ADHD symptoms.

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate throughout the day in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: results from a randomized, controlled trial.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting, prodrug stimulant therapy for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This randomized placebo-controlled trial of an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) was conducted in children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) with ADHD. To evaluate the efficacy of LDX throughout the day, symptoms and behaviors of ADHD were evaluated using an abbreviated version of the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R) at 1000, 1400 and 1800 hours following early morning dosing (0700 hours). Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference treatment, but the study was not designed to support a statistical comparison between LDX and OROS-MPH. The full analysis set comprised 317 patients (LDX, n = 104; placebo, n = 106; OROS-MPH, n = 107). At baseline, CPRS-R total scores were similar across treatment groups. At endpoint, differences (active treatment - placebo) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline CPRS-R total scores were statistically significant (P < 0.001) throughout the day for LDX (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.42; 1400 hours, 1.41; 1800 hours, 1.30) and OROS-MPH (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.04; 1400 hours, 0.98; 1800 hours, 0.92). Differences in LS mean change from baseline to endpoint were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both active treatments in all four subscales of the CPRS-R (ADHD index, oppositional, hyperactivity and cognitive). In conclusion, improvements relative to placebo in ADHD-related symptoms and behaviors in children and adolescents receiving a single morning dose of LDX or OROS-MPH were maintained throughout the day and were ongoing at the last measurement in the evening (1800 hours).

Certolizumab pegol for active Crohn's disease: a placebo-controlled, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a pegylated-conjugated Fab' against tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Additional data are needed regarding the efficacy of induction therapy with CZP in active Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: A placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of CZP therapy in 439 adults with moderate to severe CD naive to anti-TNF therapy. Patients were randomized to receive CZP (400 mg subcutaneously) or placebo at weeks 0, 2, and 4. The primary end point was clinical remission at week 6. RESULTS: Clinical remission rates at week 6 in the CZP and placebo groups were 32% and 25% (P = .174), respectively. Remission rates at weeks 2 and 4 in the CZP and placebo groups were 23% and 16% (P = .033) and 27% and 19% (P = .063), respectively. Clinical response rates at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in the CZP and placebo groups were 33% and 20% (P = .001), 35% and 26% (P = .024), and 41% and 34% (P = .179), respectively. There were significantly greater rates of clinical remission at week 6 for CZP in patients with increased concentrations of C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) at entry. Serious adverse events developed in 5% and 4% of patients in the CZP and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point did not reach statistical significance. Significant differences between CZP and placebo were observed in patients who had increased concentrations of C-reactive protein when the study began. Future clinical trials should emphasize the treatment of patients who have objective evidence of inflammation in addition to symptoms of active disease.

Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Certolizumab pegol is a pegylated humanized Fab' fragment that binds tumor necrosis factor alpha. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of certolizumab pegol in 662 adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. Patients were stratified according to baseline levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and were randomly assigned to receive either 400 mg of certolizumab pegol or placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, and 4 and then every 4 weeks. Primary end points were the induction of a response at week 6 and a response at both weeks 6 and 26. RESULTS: Among patients with a baseline CRP level of at least 10 mg per liter, 37% of patients in the certolizumab group had a response at week 6, as compared with 26% in the placebo group (P=0.04). At both weeks 6 and 26, the corresponding values were 22% and 12%, respectively (P=0.05). In the overall population, response rates at week 6 were 35% in the certolizumab group and 27% in the placebo group (P=0.02); at both weeks 6 and 26, the response rates were 23% and 16%, respectively (P=0.02). At weeks 6 and 26, the rates of remission in the two groups did not differ significantly (P=0.17). Serious adverse events were reported in 10% of patients in the certolizumab group and 7% of those in the placebo group; serious infections were reported in 2% and less than 1%, respectively. In the certolizumab group, antibodies to the drug developed in 8% of patients, and antinuclear antibodies developed in 2%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, induction and maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol was associated with a modest improvement in response rates, as compared with placebo, but with no significant improvement in remission rates. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00152490 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol for Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Certolizumab pegol is a pegylated humanized Fab' fragment with a high binding affinity for tumor necrosis factor alpha that does not induce apoptosis of T cells or monocytes. METHODS: In our randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of certolizumab pegol maintenance therapy in adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. As induction therapy, 400 mg of certolizumab pegol was administered subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, and 4. Patients with a clinical response (defined as reduction of at least 100 from the baseline score on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) at week 6 were stratified according to their baseline C-reactive protein level and were randomly assigned to receive 400 mg of certolizumab pegol or placebo every 4 weeks through week 24, with follow-up through week 26. RESULTS: Among patients with a response to induction therapy at week 6 (428 of 668 [64%]), the response was maintained through week 26 in 62% of patients with a baseline C-reactive protein level of at least 10 mg per liter (the primary end point) who were receiving certolizumab pegol (vs. 34% of those receiving placebo, P<0.001) and in 63% of patients in the intention-to-treat population who were receiving certolizumab pegol (vs. 36% receiving placebo, P<0.001). Among patients with a response to induction therapy at week 6, remission (defined by a CDAI score of < or =150) at week 26 was achieved in 48% of patients in the certolizumab group and 29% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). The efficacy of certolizumab pegol was also shown in patients taking and those not taking glucocorticoids or immunosuppressants and in patients who had and those who had not previously taken infliximab. Infectious serious adverse events (including one case of pulmonary tuberculosis) occurred in 3% of patients receiving certolizumab pegol and in less than 1% of patients receiving placebo. Antinuclear antibodies developed in 8% of the patients in the certolizumab group; antibodies against certolizumab pegol developed in 9% of all patients who entered the induction phase. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who had a response to induction therapy with 400 mg of certolizumab pegol were more likely to have a maintained response and a remission at 26 weeks with continued certolizumab pegol treatment than with a switch to placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00152425 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Continuous therapy with certolizumab pegol maintains remission of patients with Crohn's disease for up to 18 months.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the anti-tumor necrosis factor certolizumab pegol has not been reported beyond 6 months. We assessed the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of continuous versus interrupted maintenance therapy with subcutaneous certolizumab pegol in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: Patients who responded to induction therapy at week 6 of the PEGylated Antibody Fragment Evaluation in Crohn's Disease: Safety and Efficacy (PRECiSE) 2 trial were assigned randomly to groups given certolizumab pegol (continuous) or placebo (drug-interruption) during weeks 6 to 26. Patients who completed PRECiSE 2 were eligible to enter PRECiSE 3, an ongoing, prospective, open-label extension trial in which patients have received certolizumab pegol (400 mg) every 4 weeks for 54 weeks to date, and were not offered the option to increase their dose. Disease activity was measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index. RESULTS: Harvey-Bradshaw Index responses at week 26 for the continuous and drug-interruption groups were 56.3% and 37.6%, respectively; corresponding remission rates were 47.9% and 32.4%, respectively. Of patients responding at week 26, response rates at week 80 after the start of PRECiSE 2 in the continuous and drug-interruption groups were 66.1% and 63.3%, respectively; among patients in remission at week 26, week 80 remission rates were 62.1% and 63.2%, respectively. More patients in the drug-interruption group developed antibodies against certolizumab pegol (and had lower plasma concentrations of certolizumab pegol) than the continuously treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Certolizumab pegol effectively maintains remission of Crohn's disease for up to 18 months. Continuous therapy is more effective than interrupted therapy.

Reinduction with certolizumab pegol in patients with relapsed Crohn's disease: results from the PRECiSE 4 Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We sought to determine the efficacy of certolizumab pegol reinduction in patients with active Crohn's disease who respond to induction therapy with certolizumab pegol and then relapse during continuous or interrupted maintenance therapy. METHODS: In the Pegylated Antibody Fragment Evaluation in Crohn's Disease: Safety and Efficacy (PRECiSE) 2 trial, 428 patients who responded to induction therapy with certolizumab pegol at week 6 were randomized to continuous therapy with certolizumab pegol or placebo (drug interruption) during weeks 6 to 26. Patients who relapsed before week 26 could enter PRECiSE 4, an ongoing open-label extension trial in which patients on continuous therapy underwent recapture with a single extra 400-mg dose of certolizumab pegol, and patients who relapsed after drug interruption underwent reinduction with certolizumab pegol 400 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 4 followed by maintenance with certolizumab pegol 400 mg every 4 weeks. Disease activity was measured by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index. RESULTS: During PRECiSE 2, 124 patients had disease relapse and entered PRECiSE 4; 49 patients had received continuous therapy and 75 patients had drug interruption. At week 4 of PRECiSE 4, response rates were 63% in patients who relapsed on continuous therapy and 65% after drug interruption. Response was maintained in 55% and 59% of these responders, respectively, through week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 1 additional dose of certolizumab pegol to patients who relapsed on continuous maintenance therapy, and certolizumab pegol reinduction to those who relapsed after drug interruption, are effective strategies for treating patients who have relapsed after successful induction therapy with certolizumab pegol.

Increased response and remission rates in short-duration Crohn's disease with subcutaneous certolizumab pegol: an analysis of PRECiSE 2 randomized maintenance trial data.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to analyze the efficacy (response and remission) and safety data from the PRECiSE 2 trial of certolizumab pegol according to duration of Crohn's disease since diagnosis at baseline. METHODS: Responders to induction treatment with certolizumab pegol at week 6 in PRECiSE 2 (n=425) were randomized to receive certolizumab pegol 400 mg (n=215) or placebo (n=210) until week 26. Logistic regression analysis identified factors linked to Crohn's disease history (short duration, no prior infliximab use, no corticosteroids, no operations) as prognostics of outcome. Efficacy (response, remission) and safety data were reanalyzed according to duration of Crohn's disease since diagnosis at baseline. RESULTS: The proportions of patients in response at study end were inversely related to duration of Crohn's disease. Maintenance of response with certolizumab pegol was achieved in 89.5% of patients with a diagnosis <1 year (P<0.01 vs. placebo), compared with 57.3% of patients with a diagnosis > or = 5 years (P<0.001 vs. placebo). Corresponding remission rates were 68.4% (P<0.05 vs. placebo) and 44.3% (P<0.001 vs. placebo), respectively. Response and remission rates did not differ significantly by disease duration in placebo subgroups. Incidences of adverse events were unaffected by duration of disease at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients treated with certolizumab pegol 400 mg earlier rather than later, with a confirmed Crohn's disease diagnosis, may achieve better treatment outcomes.

Efficacy of Maintenance Olaparib for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer With a BRCA Mutation: Subgroup Analysis Findings From the SOLO1 Trial.

PURPOSE: In SOLO1, maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with newly diagnosed BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated advanced ovarian cancer compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; median not reached v 13.8 months). We investigated PFS in SOLO1 for subgroups of patients based on preselected baseline factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Investigator-assessed PFS subgroup analyses of SOLO1 included clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy (complete [CR] or partial response [PR]), surgery type (upfront or interval surgery), disease status after surgery (residual or no gross residual disease), and BRCA mutation status (BRCA1 or BRCA2). Additionally, we evaluated PFS in patients with stage III disease who underwent upfront surgery and had no gross residual disease. We also report objective response rate. RESULTS: The risk of disease progression or death was reduced with olaparib compared with placebo by 69% (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.46) and 63% (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.58) in patients undergoing upfront or interval surgery; 56% (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.77) and 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46) in patients with residual or no residual disease after surgery; 66% (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.47) and 69% in women with clinical CR or PR at baseline (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52); and 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.56) and 80% (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.37) in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer achieve substantial benefit from maintenance olaparib treatment regardless of baseline surgery outcome, response to chemotherapy, or BRCA mutation type.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Guanfacine Extended Release in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the continuity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) into adolescence, little is known regarding use of nonstimulants to treat ADHD in adolescents. This phase 3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of guanfacine extended release (GXR) in adolescents with ADHD. METHOD: This 13-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated once-daily GXR (1-7 mg per day) in adolescents with ADHD aged 13 to 17 years. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score; key secondary endpoints included scores from the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and Learning and School domain and Family domain scores from the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) at week 13. RESULTS: A total of 314 participants were randomized (GXR, n = 157; placebo, n = 157). The majority of participants received optimal doses of 3, 4, 5, or 6 mg (30 [22.9%], 26 [19.8%], 27 [20.6%], or 24 [18.3%] participants, respectively), with 46.5% of participants receiving an optimal dose above the currently approved maximum dose limit of 4 mg. Participants receiving GXR showed improvement in ADHD-RS-IV total score compared with placebo (least-squares mean score change, -24.55 [GXR] versus -18.53 [placebo]; effect size, 0.52; p <.001). More participants on GXR also showed significant improvement in CGI-S scores compared with placebo (50.6% versus 36.1%; p = .010). There was no statistically significant difference between treatments at week 13 in the 2 WFIRS-P domains. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate, with sedation-related events reported most commonly. CONCLUSION: GXR was associated with statistically significant improvements in ADHD symptoms in adolescents. GXR was well tolerated, with no new safety signals reported. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Dose-Optimization in Adolescents Aged 13-17 Diagnosed With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Using Extended-Release Guanfacine HCl; http://ClinicalTrials.gov/; NCT01081132.

Efficacy and safety of extended-release guanfacine hydrochloride in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, controlled, phase III trial.

Guanfacine extended-release (GXR), a selective α2A-adrenergic agonist, is a non-stimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study assessed the efficacy (symptoms and function) and safety of dose-optimized GXR compared with placebo in children and adolescents with ADHD. An atomoxetine (ATX) arm was included to provide reference data against placebo. Patients (6-17 years) were randomized at baseline to dose-optimized GXR (0.05-0.12mg/kg/day - 6-12 years: 1-4mg/day; 13-17 years: 1-7mg/day), ATX (10-100mg/day) or placebo for 4 or 7 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV). Key secondary measures were Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) and the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P; learning and school, and family domains). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms and vital signs. A total of 272 (80.5%) patients from Europe, the USA and Canada completed the study. Significant differences were observed in least squares mean change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score (placebo-adjusted differences) (GXR: [-8.9, p<0.001]; ATX: [-3.8, p<0.05]), the difference from placebo in the percentage of patients showing improvement (1 ['very much improved'] or 2 ['much improved']) for CGI-I (GXR: [23.7, p<0.001]; ATX: [12.1, p<0.05]), WFIRS-P learning and school domain (GXR: [-0.22, p<0.01]; ATX: [-0.16, p<0.05]) and WFIRS-P family domain (GXR: [-0.21, p<0.01]; ATX: [-0.09, p=0.242]). Most common TEAEs for GXR were somnolence, headache and fatigue; 70.1% of GXR subjects reported mild-to-moderate TEAEs. GXR was effective and well tolerated in children and adolescents with ADHD.

A post hoc comparison of the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate on symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited head-to-head data comparing the efficacy of long-acting amfetamine- and methylphenidate-based psychostimulants as treatments for individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This post hoc analysis provides the first parallel-group comparison of the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine) and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) on symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. STUDY DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-optimized, placebo-controlled, phase III study. SETTING: The phase III study was carried out in 48 centres across ten European countries. PATIENTS: The phase III study enrolled children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria for a primary diagnosis of ADHD and who had a baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of 28 or higher. INTERVENTION: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a once-daily, optimized dose of lisdexamfetamine (30, 50 or 70 mg/day), placebo or OROS-MPH (18, 36 or 54 mg/day) for 7 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In this post hoc analysis, efficacy was assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Responders were defined as those achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score and a CGI-I score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). The proportion of patients achieving an ADHD-RS-IV total score less than or equal to the mean for their age (based on normative data) was also determined. Endpoint was the last on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs. RESULTS: Of the 336 patients randomized, 332 were included in the safety population, 317 were included in the full analysis set and 196 completed the study. The mean (standard deviation) ADHD-RS-IV total score at baseline was 40.7 (7.31) for lisdexamfetamine, 41.0 (7.14) for placebo and 40.5 (6.72) for OROS-MPH. The least-squares (LS) mean change (standard error) in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was -24.3 (1.16) for lisdexamfetamine, -5.7 (1.13) for placebo and -18.7 (1.14) for OROS-MPH. The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in LS mean change (95% confidence interval [CI]) in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was statistically significant in favour of lisdexamfetamine (-5.6 [-8.4 to -2.7]; p < 0.001). The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in the percentage of patients (95% CI) with a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at endpoint was 17.4 (5.0-29.8; p < 0.05; number needed to treat [NNT] 6), and the difference in the percentage of patients (95% CI) achieving at least a 30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score and a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 was 18.3 (5.4-31.3; p < 0.05; NNT 6). The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in the percentage of patients (95% CI) with an ADHD-RS-IV total score less than or equal to the mean for their age at endpoint was 14.0 (0.6-27.4; p = 0.050). The overall frequency of TEAEs and the frequencies of decreased appetite, insomnia, decreased weight, nausea and anorexia TEAEs were greater in patients treated with lisdexamfetamine than in those treated with OROS-MPH, whereas headache and nasopharyngitis were more frequently reported in patients receiving OROS-MPH. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis showed that, at the doses tested, patients treated with lisdexamfetamine showed statistically significantly greater improvement in symptoms of ADHD than those receiving OROS-MPH, as assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I. The safety profiles of lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH were consistent with the known effects of stimulant medications.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the prodrug psychostimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and the non-stimulant noradrenergic compound atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had previously responded inadequately to methylphenidate (MPH). METHODS: This 9-week, head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (SPD489-317; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430) enrolled patients (aged 6-17 years) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD and an inadequate response to previous MPH therapy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) or ATX (patients <70 kg, 0.5-1.2 mg/kg with total daily dose not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg; patients ≥70 kg, 40, 80 or 100 mg). The primary efficacy outcome was time (days) to first clinical response. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). Secondary efficacy outcomes included the proportion of responders at each study visit and the change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV) and CGI-Severity scores. Tolerability and safety were assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), height and weight, vital signs and electrocardiogram parameters. Endpoint was defined as the last post-baseline, on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. RESULTS: Of 267 patients randomized (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134), 200 (74.9%) completed the study. The median time to first clinical response [95% confidence interval (CI)] was significantly shorter for patients receiving LDX [12.0 days (8.0-16.0)] than for those receiving ATX [21.0 days (15.0-23.0)] (p = 0.001). By week 9, 81.7% (95% CI 75.0-88.5) of patients receiving LDX had responded to treatment compared with 63.6% (95% CI 55.4-71.8) of those receiving ATX (p = 0.001). Also by week 9, the difference between LDX and ATX in least-squares mean change from baseline (95% CI) was significant in favour of LDX for the ADHD-RS-IV total score [-6.5 (-9.3 to -3.6); p < 0.001; effect size 0.56], inattentiveness subscale score [-3.4 (-4.9 to -1.8); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53] and the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score [-3.2 (-4.6 to -1.7); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53]. TEAEs were reported by 71.9 and 70.9% of patients receiving LDX and ATX, respectively. At endpoint, both treatments were associated with mean (standard deviation) increases in systolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.7 mmHg (9.08); ATX, +0.6 mmHg (7.96)], diastolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.1 mmHg (8.33); ATX, +1.3 mmHg (8.24)] and pulse rate [LDX, +3.6 bpm (10.49); ATX, +3.7 bpm (10.75)], and decreases in weight [LDX, -1.30 kg (1.806); ATX, -0.15 kg (1.434)]. CONCLUSIONS: LDX was associated with a faster and more robust treatment response than ATX in children and adolescents with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD who had previously responded inadequately to MPH. Both treatments displayed safety profiles consistent with findings from previous clinical trials.