Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

Post Hoc Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Antihyperglycemic Background Therapies on Attainment of A1C Targets Without Hypoglycemia in the ACHIEVE Control Pragmatic, Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND: ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, open-label, randomized, pragmatic, real-life study in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes (A1C 8.0-11.0%), demonstrated superiority of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI; glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir) in achieving individualized A1C targets without documented symptomatic (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL] or <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia (American Diabetes Association level 3) at 6 months. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic background therapies are commonly used; however, sulfonylureas may increase hypoglycemia risk. This post hoc analysis assessed outcomes according to background therapy. METHODS: Subgroup analyses were performed per concomitant use/nonuse of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. End points (6 and 12 months) included A1C target attainment without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia, A1C target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Odds ratios (ORs) at 12 months mostly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI across subgroups except in analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors, in which ORs were similar. Among sulfonylurea users, ORs at 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for all end points, particularly A1C target achievement without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or severe hypoglycemia and achievement of no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52) or severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, Gla-300 is effective with a risk of hypoglycemia that is lower than or similar to that of SOC-BI regardless of background medication. Individuals receiving concomitant sulfonylureas were more likely to remain without symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300.

Composite active range of motion (CXA) and relationship with active function in upper and lower limb spastic paresis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate a novel composite measure of active range of motion (XA) and determine whether this measure correlates with active function. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies with open-label extensions exploring changes in active function with abobotulinumtoxinA. SETTING: Tertiary rehabilitation centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States. SUBJECTS: Adults with upper (n = 254) or lower (n = 345) limb spastic paresis following stroke or brain trauma. INTERVENTIONS: AbobotulinumtoxinA (⩽5 treatment cycles) in the upper or lower limb. MAIN MEASURES: XA was used to calculate a novel composite measure (CXA), defined as the sum of XA against elbow, wrist, and extrinsic finger flexors (upper limb) or soleus and gastrocnemius muscles (lower limb). Active function was assessed by the Modified Frenchay Scale and 10-m comfortable barefoot walking speed in the upper limb and lower limb, respectively. Correlations between CXA and active function at Weeks 4 and 12 of open-label cycles were explored. RESULTS: CXA and active function were moderately correlated in the upper limb (P < 0.0001-0.0004, r = 0.476-0.636) and weakly correlated in the lower limb (P < 0.0001-0.0284, r = 0.186-0.285) at Weeks 4 and 12 of each open-label cycle. Changes in CXA and active function were weakly correlated only in the upper limb (Cycle 2 Week 12, P = 0.0160, r = 0.213; Cycle 3 Week 4, P = 0.0031, r = 0.296). Across cycles, CXA improvements peaked at Week 4, while functional improvements peaked at Week 12. CONCLUSION: CXA is a valid measure for functional impairments in spastic paresis. CXA improvements following abobotulinumtoxinA injection correlated with and preceded active functional improvements.

Real-world effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®) in adults with upper limb spasticity in routine clinical practice: an observational study.

AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A, Dysport®) is used in clinical practice as a well-tolerated and effective therapy for muscle spasticity. AboBoNT-A has been shown to reduce upper and lower limb spastic paresis in clinical trials, demonstrating improvements in muscle tone and limb function. This open-label, multicentre, observational, non-interventional study was the first to investigate aboBoNT-A's efficacy in adult patients with upper limb spasticity (ULS) in routine clinical practice in Poland. All enrolled patients received ≥1 aboBoNT-A injection cycles, per routine clinical practice (full analysis set, FAS), and ≥1 rehabilitation session. Patients attended a baseline visit (V1) and two follow-up visits (V2, V3) for retreatment, depending on the investigator's assessment of individual patient needs, with a mean interval (SD) between injections of 4.4 (1.4) and 4.5 (1.2) months. The primary effectiveness endpoint was patient- and physician-based evaluation using the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale (CGII), a validated 7-point scale (1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse) relative to baseline. CGI-I has not previously been used as a primary endpoint in studies evaluating ULS. Secondary endpoints included muscle tone in shoulder, elbow, carpal joint, and finger muscles, measured by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and muscle strength according to the Medical Research Council scale (MRC). Of 108 enrolled patients (FAS), 92 (85.2%) completed the study and 57 (52.8%) were included in the per protocol (PP) population. AboBoNT-A improved patient conditions in 96.4% and 98.6% at V2 and V3 (investigator assessment) and 92.8% and 98.6% (as reported by patient) of patients, respectively. Significant reductions in muscle tone from baseline were observed at both visits (p < 0.0001-0.0077) across muscle groups. Increased muscle strength by cumulative MRC was observed at V2 (p = 0.0566) and V3 (p = 0.0282) versus baseline. Safety was consistent with the known profile of aboBoNT-A. In conclusion, aboBoNT-A treatment is beneficial in patients with post-stroke ULS in routine clinical practice, assessed by patients and investigators.

Effects on walking of simultaneous upper/lower limb abobotulinumtoxina injections in patients with stroke or brain injury with spastic hemiparesis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare walking speed in patients with spastic hemiparesis who received abobotulinumtoxinA either in the lower limb or simultaneously in both the lower and upper limbs. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis from a phase 3 study of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®, NCT01251367). PATIENTS: Adult patients with spastic hemiparesis causing gait dysfunction. METHODS: Comfortable barefoot walking speed over 10 m was evaluated in patients receiving lower limb vs lower and upper limb injections over ≤4 treatment cycles; 1,000 U or 1,500 U in lower limb for cycle 1/2; optional upper limb injections from cycle 3 (500 U: upper limb, 1,000 U: lower limb). RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation; SD) lower limb cycle 3/4 doses were lower in the lower plus upper limb group vs lower limb only (1,000 U (SD 50), 1,000 U (SD 50) vs 1,380 U (SD 210), 1,360 U (SD 220). Baseline comfortable barefoot walking speed was similar between groups. Changes at cycle 3 week 4, in m/s, were: lower and upper limb: +0.063 (SD 0.131); lower limb only: +0.078 (SD 0.114), and cycle 4 week 4: lower and upper limb: +0.086 (SD 0.166); lower limb only: +0.086 (SD 0.123). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous lower and upper limb abobotulinumtoxinA treatment does not hamper improvement in walking speed compared with lower limb treatment alone. Thus, physicians may split the 1,500 U abobotulinumtoxinA dose as needed to best treat patients with spastic paresis.

Assessment of Subject and Physician Satisfaction after Long-Term Treatment of Glabellar Lines with AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®/Azzalure®): Primary Results of the APPEAL Noninterventional Study.

BACKGROUND: Although the short- and long-term effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®/Azzalure®) for glabellar line (GL) treatment is well established, reporting of subject satisfaction over repeat treatment cycles is limited. The APPEAL study aimed to assess subject satisfaction with long-term GL treatment with abobotulinumtoxinA in a real-life setting. METHODS: APPEAL was a noninterventional, prospective, longitudinal study in subjects administered ≥ 3 abobotulinumtoxinA injection cycles for moderate-to-severe GL, according to routine clinical practice. Subjects completed a satisfaction questionnaire at 3 weeks (± 7 days) after each cycle. Primary endpoint included subjects' overall satisfaction with GL after three injection cycles. Secondary endpoints included satisfaction after Cycles 1 and 2 and factors associated with satisfaction after each cycle. Physician satisfaction was also assessed after Cycles 1 and 3. RESULTS: Of 150 subjects enrolled, 135 completed the overall subject satisfaction questionnaire after Cycle 3. At 3 weeks after Cycle 3, 99.3% of subjects were 'very satisfied' (74.1%) or 'satisfied' (25.2%) with GL. Levels of subject satisfaction and associated factors after Cycles 1 and 2 were as large and significant as after Cycle 3 (83-100%, depending on question). Physicians' satisfaction with GL appearance, facial expression, and overall satisfaction was almost complete after the first injection (≥ 97.4%) and unanimous after the third (100%). CONCLUSIONS: In the APPEAL study, overall satisfaction was high after three abobotulinumtoxinA injection cycles for GL based on both subjects' (99.3%) and physicians' (100.0%) assessments. High levels of subject satisfaction reported after Cycle 1 were maintained with repeated injections. No new safety signals were observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . Trial registration NCT02353897.