Phase 2 study of tabalumab, a human anti-B-cell activating factor antibody, with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.

In this double-blind, Phase 2 study, 220 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive placebo (N = 72), tabalumab 100 mg (N = 74), or tabalumab 300 mg (N = 74), each in combination with dexamethasone 20 mg and subcutaneous bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 on a 21-day cycle. No significant intergroup differences were observed among primary (median progression-free survival [mPFS]) or secondary efficacy outcomes. The mPFS was 6·6, 7·5 and 7·6 months for the tabalumab 100, 300 mg and placebo groups, respectively (tabalumab 100 mg vs. placebo Hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1·13 [0·80-1·59], P = 0·480; tabalumab 300 mg vs. placebo HR [95% CI] = 1·03 [0·72-1·45], P = 0·884). The most commonly-reported treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (37%), fatigue (37%), diarrhoea (35%) and constipation (32%). Across treatments, patients with low baseline BAFF (also termed TNFSF13B) expression (n = 162) had significantly longer mPFS than those with high BAFF expression (n = 55), using the 75th percentile cut-off point (mPFS [95% CI] = 8·3 [7·0-9·3] months vs. 5·8 [3·7-6·6] months; HR [95% CI] = 1·59 [1·11-2·29], P = 0·015). Although generally well tolerated, PFS was not improved during treatment with tabalumab compared to placebo. A higher dose of 300 mg tabalumab did not improve efficacy compared to the 100 mg dose. Nonetheless, BAFF appears to have some prognostic value in patients with multiple myeloma.

Phase 1 Study of Tabalumab, a Human Anti-B-Cell Activating Factor Antibody, and Bortezomib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Tabalumab, a human mAb that neutralizes B-cell-activating factor (BAFF), demonstrated antitumor activity in xenograft models of multiple myeloma. Here we report on a phase I study of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients in which the primary objective was to identify a tolerable and potentially efficacious dose of tabalumab when combined with bortezomib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-eight patients were enrolled; 20 to the dose-escalation cohort, and 28 to cohort expansion in which a dose of 100 mg of tabalumab was evaluated. All patients had received either prior bortezomib or an immunomodulatory drug; the median number of prior therapies was 3. Bortezomib was administered intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day schedule. Tabalumab was given every 21 days for 3 cycles, then every 42 days thereafter. RESULTS: The most common grade 3/4 toxicities included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, pneumonia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Pharmacokinetic data suggested serum exposure increased in a greater than dose-proportional manner up to a dose of 100 mg. Out of 46 evaluable patients, 20 had confirmed responses. The median time to progression (9 patients censored) was 4.8 months, and the median response duration (4 patients censored) was 7.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: A dose of 100 mg tabalumab in combination with bortezomib was well tolerated and active and is currently under further investigation. Clin Cancer Res; 22(23); 5688-95. ©2016 AACR.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed has shown varied response rates in advanced breast cancer. This randomized, double-blind, phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of two doses of pemetrexed in a homogeneous population. A secondary objective was to identify molecular biomarkers correlating with response and toxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer or locally recurrent breast cancer received 600 mg/m(2) (P600 arm) or 900 mg/m(2) (P900 arm) of pemetrexed on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation. RESULTS: The P600 (47 patients) and P900 (45 patients) arms had response rates of 17.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.7-30.8%) and 15.6% (95% confidence interval, 6.5-29.5%) with approximately 50% stable disease per arm, median progression-free survival of 4.2 and 4.1 months, and median times to tumor progression of 4.2 and 4.6 months, respectively. Both arms exhibited minimal toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia <20%, leukopenia <9%, and other toxicities <5%). Tumor samples from 49 patients were assessed for the expression levels of 12 pemetrexed-related genes. Folylpolyglutamate synthetase and thymidine phosphorylase correlated with efficacy. Best response rates and median time to tumor progression for high versus low thymidine phosphorylase expression were 27.6% versus 6.3% (P = 0.023) and 5.4 versus 1.9 months (P = 0.076), and for folylpolyglutamate synthetase were 37.5% versus 10.0% (P = 0.115) and 8.6 versus 3.0 months (P = 0.019), respectively. gamma-Glutamyl hydrolase expression correlated with grade 3/4 toxicities: 78.6% for high versus 27.3% for low gamma-glutamyl hydrolase (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The two pemetrexed doses yielded similar efficacy and safety profiles. Exploratory biomarker analysis identified efficacy and toxicity correlations and warrants further evaluation.

Reduced suicidal ideation in bipolar I disorder mixed-episode patients in a placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine combined with lithium or divalproex.

OBJECTIVE: To identify symptoms associated with suicidality in bipolar I disorder patients, and to assess suicide risk during treatment with olan-zapine in combination with lithium or divalproex. METHOD: We used data from a study (conducted from September 1997 to October 2000) in which DSM-IV bipolar I manic or mixed-episode patients who were partially responsive to at least 2 weeks of lithium or dival-proex monotherapy prior to study entry were randomly assigned to augmentation therapy with olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) or placebo. Among mixed-episode patients with residual suicidality (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-item 3 [HAM-D-3] score of 1 or above) at randomization to cotherapy, we identified items in the Young Mania Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale that correlated with HAM-D-3 scores. We used factor analysis of correlated items to identify symptom domains associated with suicidality ratings and assessed changes in symptom factors and HAM-D-3 scores during 6 weeks of combination therapy with olanzapine versus placebo. RESULTS: In 58 mixed-episode patients, mean +/- SD HAM-D-3 scores averaged 1.36 +/- 0.55 after at least 2 weeks of initial mood stabilizer monotherapy prior to study entry. Factors associated with the HAM-D-3 appeared to represent somatic discomfort, agitated depression, and psychotic features. Combination therapy with olanzapine (N = 36) versus placebo (N = 22) differentially reduced HAM-D-3 scores by 58% versus 29% (p < .05) within 1 week, and all 3 associated symptom factors within 2 weeks by averages of 31% versus 12% (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Suicidality in adult, mixed-episode, bipolar I disorder patients was associated with somatic discomfort, agitated depression, and psychosis. Overall, these findings suggest that the addition of an atypical antipsychotic-antimanic agent in some bipolar disorder patients may help to reduce suicidal ideation.

Comparing onset of antidepressant action using a repeated measures approach and a traditional assessment schedule.

BACKGROUND: It has been recommended that onset of antidepressant action be assessed using survival analyses with assessments taken at least twice per week. However, such an assessment schedule is problematic to implement. The present study assessed the feasibility of comparing onset of action between treatments using a categorical repeated measures approach with a traditional assessment schedule. METHOD: Four scenarios representative of antidepressant clinical trials were created by varying mean improvements over time. Two assessment schedules were compared within the simulated 8-week studies: (i) 'frequent' assessment--16 postbaseline visits (twice-weekly for 8 weeks); (ii) 'traditional' assessment--5 postbaseline visits (Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8). Onset was defined as a 20 per cent improvement from baseline, and had to be sustained at all subsequent assessments. Differences between treatments were analysed with a survival analysis (KM = Kaplan-Meier product limit method) and a categorical mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis (MMRM-CAT). RESULTS: More frequent assessments resulted in small reductions in empirical standard errors compared with traditional assessments for both analytic methods. More frequent assessments altered estimates of treatment group differences in KM such that power was increased when the difference between treatments was increasing over time, but power decreased when the treatment difference decreased over time. More frequent assessments had a minimal effect on estimates of treatment group differences in MMRM-CAT. The MMRM-CAT analysis of data from a traditional assessment schedule provided adequate control of type I error, and had power comparable to or greater than that with KM analyses of data from either a frequent or a traditional assessment schedule. CONCLUSION: In the scenarios tested in this study it was reasonable to assess treatment group differences in onset of action with MMRM-CAT and a traditional assessment schedule. Additional research is needed to assess whether these findings hold in data with drop-out and across definitions of onset.

A post hoc analysis of transitioning to oral treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol after 24-hour intramuscular treatment in acutely agitated adult patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia might require treatment with IM antipsychotics, followed by a transition to oral medication. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between 24-hour IM and transitional oral dosages of 2 antipsychotic medications, olanzapine and haloperidol. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy of olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo in acutely agitated inpatients aged > or =18 years with schizophrenia conducted at hospitals in 13 countries. Patients received 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours (IM phase), followed by 4 days of oral treatment with 5 to 20 mg/d of either antipsychotic (oral phase). Study patients were grouped according to which drug they received, and subgrouped based on whether they received a single or multiple IM injections. Rates of transition to lower (5-10 mg/d) versus higher (15-20 mg/d) dosages were compared within and between treatments. RESULTS: Data from 236 patients were analyzed (olanzapine, 121 patients [76 men, 45 women; mean (SD) age, 38.4 (12.2) years; mean (SD) weight, 74.9 (18.5) kg]; haloperidol, 115 patients [80 men, 35 women; mean (SD) age, 38.0 (10.2) years; mean (SD) weight, 75.4 (18.7) kg]). At the end of the IM phase, the rate of haloperidol patients who were transitioned to lower oral doses was significantly higher in the single-injection subgroup compared with the multiple-injection subgroup (P = 0.03); this difference was not found in the group receiving olanzapine. At day 4 of oral treatment, the rates of patients in the olanzapine and haloperidol groups who were transitioned to higher oral doses were significantly higher in the single-injection subgroups compared with the multiple-injection subgroups (P = 0.002 and =0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this study, the proportion of agitated patients with schizophrenia who transitioned to higher dosages (15-20 mg) of olanzapine or haloperidol by day 4 of the oral switch was significantly greater in patients who were previously treated with a single IM injection of olanzapine (10 mg) or haloperidol (7.5 mg).right.

Association between early and rapid weight gain and change in weight over one year of olanzapine therapy in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders.

Weight gain is an important issue in the use of atypical antipsychotics, including olanzapine. A retrospective analysis of patterns of weight gain and possible covariates was performed for 1191 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were treated with olanzapine for up to 52 weeks. Patients were dichotomized into 2 main groups according to the percentage of body weight gained during the first 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine: (1) patients who gained > or =7% of their body weight (Rapid Weight Gain Group [RWG]), and (2) patients who lost weight, gained no weight, or gained <7% of their body weight (Nonrapid Weight Gain Group [NRWG]). Results demonstrated that approximately 15% of the patient population showed rapid increases in weight (RWG group), whereas 85% of patients gained weight more slowly or not at all (NRWG group). Patients in the RWG group gained an average of 4% of their body weight (approximately 4-7 lb) within the first 2 weeks of treatment with olanzapine. Furthermore, patients in the RWG group were younger, had a lower baseline body mass index, were more likely to report an increase in appetite, and showed a more robust clinical response compared with patients in the NRWG group. Over the course of 52 weeks, patients in the RWG group gained significantly more weight and reached a higher plateau for mean weight increase at 38 weeks compared with the mean increase observed for patients in the NRWG group. By measuring the weight of patients during the first few weeks of olanzapine treatment and by assessing changes in appetite, clinicians may be able to identify those patients at risk for substantial weight gain.

The effect of correlation structure on treatment contrasts estimated from incomplete clinical trial data with likelihood-based repeated measures compared with last observation carried forward ANOVA.

Valid analyses of longitudinal data can be problematic, particularly when subjects dropout prior to completing the trial for reasons related to the outcome. Regulatory agencies often favor the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach for imputing missing values in the primary analysis of clinical trials. However, recent evidence suggests that likelihood-based analyses developed under the missing at random framework provide viable alternatives. The within-subject error correlation structure is often the means by which such methods account for the bias from missing data. The objective of this study was to extend previous work that used only one correlation structure by including several common correlation structures in order to assess the effect of the correlation structure in the data, and how it is modeled, on Type I error rates and power from a likelihood-based repeated measures analysis (MMRM), using LOCF for comparison. Data from four realistic clinical trial scenarios were simulated using autoregressive, compound symmetric and unstructured correlation structures. When the correct correlation structure was fit, MMRM provided better control of Type I error and power than LOCF. Although misfitting the correlation structure in MMRM inflated Type I error and altered power, misfitting the structure was typically less deleterious than using LOCF. In fact, simply specifying an unstructured matrix for use in MMRM, regardless of the true correlation structure, yielded superior control of Type I error than LOCF in every scenario. The present and previous investigations have shown that the bias in LOCF is influenced by several factors and interactions between them. Hence, it is difficult to precisely anticipate the direction and magnitude of bias from LOCF in practical situations. However, in scenarios where the overall tendency is for patient improvement, LOCF tends to: 1) overestimate a drug's advantage when dropout is higher in the comparator and underestimate the advantage when dropout is lower in the comparator; 2) overestimate a drug's advantage when the advantage is maximum at intermediate time points and underestimate the advantage when the advantage increases over time; and 3) have a greater likelihood of overestimating a drug's advantage when the advantage is small. In scenarios in which the overall tendency is for patient worsening, the above biases are reversed. In the simulation scenarios considered in this study, which were patterned after acute phase neuropsychiatric clinical trials, the likelihood-based repeated measures approach, implemented with standard software, was more robust to the bias from missing data than LOCF, and choice of correlation structure was not an impediment to its implementation.

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine in the control of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

BACKGROUND: This analysis compares the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine in controlling negative and positive symptoms of chronic psychosis in older patients. METHOD: Post hoc assessments were made in a subset of risperidone-treated (N = 19) and olanzapine-treated (N = 20) older patients (aged 50 to 65 years) from a large international, multicenter, parallel, double-blind, 28-week study of patients aged 18 to 65 years (N = 339) randomly assigned to receive risperidone (4-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day). Assessments were made using repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: At both 8 weeks and 28 weeks, the magnitude of changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptom subscale scores did not differ between treatment groups (8 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -6.8, p = .866; 28 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -7.0; p = .804). However, by the 8-week timepoint, olanzapine had reduced PANSS negative subscale scores significantly more than risperidone (-8.8 vs. -4.9, p = .032). By the 28-week endpoint, olanzapine had continued to maintain significantly greater reduction in baseline-to-endpoint PANSS negative scores (-8.1 vs. -3.5, p = .032) and led to significantly greater reduction in scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) dimensions of affective flattening (-5.2 vs. -0.6, p = .033) and alogia (-3.8 vs. -0.3, p = .007). Patients in the olanzapine treatment group also demonstrated numerically greater reduction of both SANS summary (-3.7 vs. -1.0, p = .078) and SANS composite scores (-14.1 vs. -4.1, p = .075). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that, in older patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine have approximately equal efficacy in controlling positive symptoms. However, olanzapine appears to be more efficacious in maintaining control over negative symptoms.

The effects of antipsychotic drug treatment on prolactin concentrations in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the change in serum prolactin concentrations in elderly agitated nursing home patients with dementia who were newly initiated on olanzapine or switched to olanzapine treatment from either conventional antipsychotics or risperidone. METHODS: During an 8-week open-label olanzapine efficacy trial in elderly nursing home patients demonstrating clinically significant behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, serum prolactin concentrations were drawn on four occasions: at time of consent, following a washout period from previous therapy, midway through the study, and at endpoint. To assess post-hoc the effects of prolactin concentrations upon switching to olanzapine treatment, patients were divided into three different groups, based upon status at time of consent: those not taking antipsychotic medication, those taking any conventional antipsychotic, and those taking risperidone. Prolactin concentrations were assessed using a mixed-effect repeated-measures model. Symptom severity was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the same repeated measures analysis was performed on these scales. RESULTS: Patients not on antipsychotic medication at study entry (29 females, 7 males) experienced a significant increase in prolactin concentration baseline to endpoint (P < 0.05) but remained below upper limit of normal for prolactin for both males and females. There was a nonsignificant increase in prolactin concentrations when patients were switched from conventional antipsychotic medications (mean dose 152.41 +/- 192.48 mg/day chlorpromazine equivalents) to olanzapine (2.5 to 10 mg/day) (22 females, 9 males). Patients who entered the study on risperidone (mean dose 1.31 +/- 0.91 mg/day) (13 females, 4 males) experienced a significant decrease in prolactin concentration (P < 0.001). While 62.5% of risperidone-treated patients had above-normal prolactin concentrations at baseline, only 21.4% had above-normal concentrations at endpoint (P = 0.033). Clear correlations between prolactin concentrations and clinical outcomes could not be determined. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous findings in younger patients, olanzapine appeared to be a prolactin-sparing antipsychotic medication in the elderly with only modest prolactin increases observed. In addition, patients who were receiving risperidone and then switched to olanzapine experienced a significant reduction in prolactin concentrations that was sustained over the 8-week treatment course with olanzapine. One possible explanation for olanzapine's relatively modest increase in prolactin is that, unlike conventionals or risperidone, olanzapine binds less tightly with the dopamine D(2) receptor.