Prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells and CXCR4 expression as biomarkers for a CXCR4 peptide antagonist in combination with carboplatin-etoposide in small cell lung cancer: exploratory analysis of a phase II study.

Background Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) expression in CTCs and tumor tissue were evaluated as prognostic or predictive markers of CXCR4 peptide antagonist LY2510924 plus carboplatin-etoposide (CE) versus CE in extensive-stage disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods This exploratory analysis of a phase II study evaluated CXCR4 expression in baseline tumor tissue and peripheral blood CTCs and in post-treatment CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were determined for CTC counts and CXCR4 expression in tumors and CTCs as predictors of survival outcome. Kaplan-Meier estimates and hazard ratios were used to determine biomarker prognostic and predictive values. Results There was weak positive correlation at baseline between CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue and CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were H-score ≥ 210 for CXCR4+ tumor, ≥7% CTCs with CXCR4 expression (CXCR4+ CTCs), and ≥6 CTCs/7.5 mL blood. Baseline H-score for CXCR4+ tumor was not prognostic of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTCs ≥6 at baseline and cycle 2, day 1 were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS. None of the biomarkers at their respective optimum cutoffs was predictive of treatment response of LY2510924 plus CE versus CE. Conclusions In patients with ED-SCLC, baseline CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue was not prognostic of survival or predictive of LY2510924 treatment response. Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTC count ≥6 at baseline and after 1 cycle of treatment were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS.

The ALSFRS-R Summit: a global call to action on the use of the ALSFRS-R in ALS clinical trials.

The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS) was developed more than 25 years ago as an instrument to monitor functional change over time in patients with ALS. It has since been revised and extended to meet the needs of high data quality in ALS trials (ALSFRS-R), however a full re-validation of the scale was not completed. Despite this, the scale has remained a primary outcome measure in clinical trials. We convened a group of clinical trialists to discuss and explore opportunities to improve the scale and propose alternative measures. In this meeting report, we present a call to action on the use of the ALSFRS-Revised scale in clinical trials, focusing on the need for (1) harmonization of the ALSFRS-R administration globally, (2) alignment on a set of recommendations for clinical trial design and statistical analysis plans (SAPs), and (3) use of additional outcome measures.

Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: The present work examined suicide-related events in acute, double-blind, and placebo- or active comparator-controlled trials with atomoxetine. METHOD: Fourteen trials in pediatric patients were included. Potential events were identified in the adverse events database using a text-string search. Potential suicide-related events were categorized according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration-defined codes using blinded patient summaries. The meta-analyses used the Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio methods. RESULTS: No patient in atomoxetine attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trials committed suicide. The frequency of suicidal ideation was 0.37% (5/1357) in pediatric patients taking atomoxetine versus 0% (0/851) for the placebo group; Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.09-0.83; p =.016) and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-13.57; p =.172). Frequencies of suicide-related events in pediatric patients with ADHD did not differ between methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatments (Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.62 to 0.38; p =.649). The number needed to harm in pediatric patients for an additional suicide-related event is 227 compared to the number needed to treat of five to achieve remission of ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, suicidal ideation was significantly more frequent in pediatric ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine compared to those treated with placebo. Retrospective analysis has limitations in ascertaining intent.

Meta-analysis of aggression or hostility events in randomized, controlled clinical trials of atomoxetine for ADHD.

BACKGROUND: We systematically examined potential aggression/hostility-related events in a meta-analysis of acute clinical trials of atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Pediatric patients from 14 trials of atomoxetine were subdivided into a placebo-controlled (atomoxetine n = 1308, placebo n = 806) or active comparator databases (atomoxetine n = 566, methylphenidate n = 472). A third database comprised adult patients from placebo-controlled studies (atomoxetine n = 541, placebo n = 405). A computerized search of adverse events and comments identified patients with potential aggression/hostility events. Mantel-Haenszel incidence differences (MHID) were calculated. RESULTS: In the placebo-controlled database, we observed 21 atomoxetine and 9 placebo patients with reported aggression/hostility events, MHID of .6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.4, 1.7). In the active comparator database, there were seven events in atomoxetine and four in methylphenidate patients, MHID = .2% (95% CI: -1.0,1.3). In the adult database, there were no events in 0 atomoxetine and one placebo patient, MHID = -.3% (95% CI: -.8, .2). CONCLUSIONS: Aggression/hostility-related events occurred in less than 2% of patients and were more frequent in pediatric patients treated with atomoxetine versus placebo (risk ratio of 1.33; not statistically significant). The risk of aggression/hostility events was similar in patients treated with atomoxetine or methylphenidate.

A randomized phase II study of LY2510924 and carboplatin/etoposide versus carboplatin/etoposide in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of LY2510924 (LY) added to first-line standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy for extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) and explored the predictive value of C-X-C motif receptor 4 (CXCR4) tumor response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive up to six 21-day cycles of carboplatin/etoposide alone (SOC) or in combination with 20mg LY2510924 administered subcutaneously on days 1-7 of each cycle (LY+SOC). The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Response relative to CXCR4 expression on baseline tumor was an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: Of 94 patients randomized, 90 received treatment (LY+SOC, n=47; SOC, n=43). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 5.88 (4.83, 6.24) months for LY+SOC versus 5.85 (4.63, 5.51) months for SOC (hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.01 [0.62, 1.63]; p=0.9806). Median OS (95% CI) was 9.72 (6.64, 11.70) months for LY+SOC versus 11.14 (8.25, 13.44) months for SOC. ORR was 74.5% for LY+SOC versus 81% for SOC. Safety results between arms were similar, although the following adverse events were more frequent on the LY+SOC arm: anemia (61.7% vs 46.5%), neutropenia (61.7% vs 53.5%), leukopenia (27.7% vs 9.3%), vomiting (27.7% vs 16.3%), and pneumonia (10.6% vs 2.3%). In patients whose baseline CXCR4 expression was above the optimal cutoff (H-score 210), the hazard ratio (95% CI) was 1.27 (0.51, 3.15). CONCLUSION: LY2510924 did not improve efficacy but had an acceptable toxicity profile when added to SOC for ED-SCLC.

A Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of the CXCR4 Inhibitor LY2510924 in Combination with Sunitinib Versus Sunitinib Alone in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC).

PURPOSE: The chemokine (C-X-C Motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) and its ligand, stromal-cell derived factor-1 (SDF-1), are frequently overexpressed in a variety of solid tumors, and are believed to play important roles in the regulation of organ-specific metastasis, tumor growth, invasion, and survival. In this randomized Phase 2 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of LY2510924 (LY), a peptide antagonist of CXCR4, combined with sunitinib (SUN) in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive LY (20 mg SC daily) + SUN (50 mg PO daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off) or SUN alone. Response was assessed after two cycles; patients continued treatment until tumor progression or intolerable toxicity. The study was powered to detect a 47 % increase in median progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were randomized and treated (LY + SUN, 72; SUN, 36); median duration of treatment of five cycles. Observed median PFS was 8.1 months with LY + SUN and 12.3 months with SUN; Bayesian time-to-event HR 1.23; 95 % credible interval: 0.74, 1.96. LY was well tolerated; the toxicity profile was typical of SUN. No efficacy differences were seen between treatments groups when subsets with high versus low levels of CXCR4 tumor expression were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of LY to SUN in the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC was well tolerated, but did not improve the PFS or overall survival (OS) vs. SUN alone. CXCR4 remains an unproven therapeutic target for the treatment of RCC. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01391130.

Detecting Data Quality Issues in Clinical Trials: Current Practices and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data quality issues in clinical trials can be caused by a variety of behaviors including fraud, misconduct, intentional or unintentional noncompliance, and significant carelessness. Regardless of how these behaviors are defined, they may compromise the validity of the study results. Reliable study results and quality data are needed to evaluate products for marketing approval and for decisions that are made on the use of medicine. This article focuses on detecting data quality issues, irrespective of origin or motive. Early detection of data quality issues are important so that corrective actions taken can be implemented during the conduct of the trial, recurrence can be prevented, and data quality can be preserved. METHODS: A survey was distributed to TransCelerate member companies to assess current strategies for detecting and mitigating risks involving fraud and misconduct in clinical trials. A review of literature across many industries from 1985 to 2014 was conducted using multiple platforms. RESULTS: Eighteen TransCelerate member companies anonymously responded to the survey. All of the respondents had one or more existing strategies for fraud and misconduct detection. The literature search identified current practices and methodologies across many industries. CONCLUSIONS: TransCelerate recommends the creation of an integrated, multifaceted approach to proactively detect data quality issues. Detection methods should include a strategy tailored to the characteristics of the study. Some sponsors are taking advantage of more advanced methods and integrated processes and systems to proactively detect and address issues, relying on advances in technology to more efficiently review data in real time. Further research is underway to assess statistical data quality detection methodology in clinical trials.

A phase I trial of LY2510924, a CXCR4 peptide antagonist, in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Overexpression of C-X-C motif receptor 4 (CXCR4) is implicated in tumor progression. LY2510924 is a peptide antagonist, which blocks stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF1) from CXCR4 binding. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I study included two parts: a 3+3 dose escalation (part A) and dose confirmation (part B). LY2510924 was administered as a daily subcutaneous injection on a 28-day cycle. The primary objective was to determine the recommended phase II dose. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and pharmacodynamic response, including mobilization of CD34(+) hematopoietic stem cells into the peripheral blood. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled, 25 in part A and 20 in part B. Patients were administered increasing doses of LY2510924: 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 20, and 30 mg/day for part A and 2.5 or 20 mg/day for part B. Two patients (30-mg/day cohort) experienced dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 increased neutrophil count. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 20 mg/day. The most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (9%), injection-site reaction (9%), injection site pruritus (7%), and nausea (7%). The best response was stable disease for nine patients (20%). At the end of cycle 1, mean peak LY2510924 plasma concentration and the 24-hour area under the plasma concentration versus time curve increased slightly more than dose proportionally. LY2510924 dose dependently increased CD34(+) cell counts in peripheral blood up to 18-fold. CONCLUSIONS: LY2510924 demonstrated CD34(+) cell mobilization at doses ≥2.5 mg/day with a tolerable safety profile up to an MTD of 20 mg/day.

Double-blind, randomized study evaluating the glycemic and anti-inflammatory effects of subcutaneous LY2189102, a neutralizing IL-1ß antibody, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Inflammation is associated with pancreatic ß-cell apoptosis and reduced insulin sensitivity. Literature suggests that interleukin (IL)-1ß may contribute to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LY2189102, a neutralizing IL-1ß antibody, in T2DM patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Phase II, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous LY2189102 (0.6, 18, and 180 mg) administered weekly for 12 weeks in T2DM patients on diet and exercise, with or without approved antidiabetic medications. RESULTS: LY2189102 reduced HbA1c at 12 weeks (adjusted mean differences versus placebo: -0.27, -0.38 and -0.25% for 0.6, 18 and 180 mg doses, respectively), and fasting glucose at multiple time points compared with placebo. LY2189102 also reduced postprandial glycemia, and inflammatory biomarkers, including hs-CRP and IL-6. LY2189102 was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly subcutaneous LY2189102 for 12 weeks was well tolerated, modestly reduced HbA1c and fasting glucose, and demonstrated significant anti-inflammatory effects in T2DM patients. Neutralizing IL-1ß holds promise as a convenient adjuvant treatment for T2DM.

Fluoxetine and adult suicidality revisited: an updated meta-analysis using expanded data sources from placebo-controlled trials.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatments have been suggested by some to induce emergence of suicidality (ideation and behaviors). The objective of this study was to assess suicidality emergence by adverse event and rating scale data in the largest available, adult, major depression, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fluoxetine trial database (18 trials). Adverse event reports and comments for patients (fluoxetine, n = 2200; placebo, n = 1551) were searched for suicide-related events that were then classified into Food and Drug Administration categories. For 16 trials, suicidality was also examined by Hamilton Depression Scale item 3 (suicide) scores, and these data were analyzed along with the combination of event-based data and scale-based data. Comparisons between treatments were made for various estimates of worsening (risk) and improvement (benefit) of suicidality. Fluoxetine treatment did not result in greater worsening but was associated with greater improvement and faster resolution of ideation (P < or = 0.05 vs placebo). Data sources were differentially sensitive in detecting changes in suicidal ideation and behaviors. Fluoxetine treatment led to greater benefit rather than risk for suicidality.

Duloxetine: meta-analyses of suicidal behaviors and ideation in clinical trials for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty regarding relationships of antidepressant treatment and suicidality encouraged systematic review of data on suicidal behaviors and ideation from Phase II and III clinical trials of duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We evaluated all completed duloxetine trials in MDD with data lock by February 2, 2004. We compared incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in controlled trials, using Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference (MHID) and exposure time-adjusted rate difference (MHRD) methods, and analyzed changes in Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) Item-3 (suicidality) scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in 12 placebo-controlled trials (duloxetine, 1812; placebo, 1184 [corrected] patients). The MHID for suicide-related behaviors was -0.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.42) and MHRD -0.002 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02). Changes in HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores showed more improvement with duloxetine (MHID, 9.56%; 95% CI, 4.50 to 14.6; P < 0.001) and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine (MHID, -4.25%; 95% CI, -6.55 to -1.95; P < 0.001). Other Item-3 findings showed no consistent pattern; a slightly higher proportion of duloxetine-treated patients with a change from 0 (absent) to 3 was balanced against a higher proportion of placebo-treated patients changing from 0 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of an increased risk of suicidal behaviors or ideation during treatment with duloxetine compared with placebo in MDD patients. HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores had more improvement and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine than placebo.

A review of treatment-emergent adverse events during olanzapine clinical trials in elderly patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine and other antipsychotics are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat behavioral disturbances associated with dementia, but they are often prescribed to these patients. Although antipsychotics may be efficacious in this population, elderly patients with dementia may be particularly vulnerable to adverse events. This article reviews the safety of olanzapine in elderly patients with dementia. DATA SOURCES: Data from 6 studies comparing olanzapine to placebo, risperidone, or conventional antipsychotics in elderly patients with dementia were analyzed for mortality, cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs), and other adverse events. These trials represent all Lilly olanzapine-comparator trials in this population. The data included integration of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (olanzapine, N = 1184; placebo, N = 478; median age = 79 years; 1 study also compared olanzapine with risperidone, N = 196) and an open-label study comparing olanzapine (N = 150) with conventional antipsychotics (N = 143). DATA SYNTHESIS: Incidence of mortality was significantly higher in olanzapine- (3.5%) than in placebo-treated patients (1.5%; p = .024). There were no significant differences in the crude incidence of mortality between olanzapine- (2.9%) and risperidone- (2.0%) or olanzapine- (14.8%) and conventional antipsychotic-treated patients (16.1%; p = .871). Risk factors associated with mortality in olanzapine-treated patients included age >/= 80, concurrent benzodiazepine use, treatment-emergent sedation, or treatment-emergent pulmonary conditions. Incidence of CVAEs was approximately 3 times higher in olanzapine- (1.3%) than in placebo-treated patients (0.4%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of CVAEs between olanzapine- (2.5%) and risperidone- (2.0%; p = 1.0) or olanzapine- (3.4%) and conventional antipsychotic-treated patients (4.3%; p = .765). CONCLUSION: These findings should be considered if prescribers elect to treat behavioral disturbances associated with dementia in the elderly with olanzapine or other antipsychotics.