Macitentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Associated with Connective Tissue Disease (CTD-PAH): Real-World Evidence from the Combined OPUS/OrPHeUS Dataset.

INTRODUCTION: Data on real-world clinical practice and outcomes of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with connective tissue disease (CTD-PAH) are scarce. The OPUS/OrPHeUS studies enrolled patients newly initiating macitentan, including those with CTD-PAH. This analysis describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, outcomes, and safety profiles of patients with CTD-PAH newly initiating macitentan in the US using the OPUS/OrPHeUS combined dataset. METHODS: OPUS was a prospective, US, multicenter, long-term, observational drug registry (April 2014-June 2020). OrPHeUS was a retrospective, US, multicenter medical chart review (October 2013-March 2017). The characteristics, treatment patterns, safety, and outcomes during macitentan treatment of patients with CTD-PAH and its subgroups systemic sclerosis (SSc-PAH), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE-PAH), and mixed CTD (MCTD-PAH) were descriptively compared to patients with idiopathic/heritable PAH (I/HPAH). RESULTS: The combined OPUS/OrPHeUS population included 2498 patients with I/HPAH and 1192 patients with CTD-PAH (708 SSc-PAH; 159 SLE-PAH; 124 MCTD-PAH, and 201 other CTD-PAH etiologies). At macitentan initiation for patients with I/HPAH and CTD-PAH, respectively: 61.2 and 69.3% were in World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC) III/IV; median 6-min walk distance was 289 and 279 m; and 58.1 and 65.2% received macitentan as combination therapy. During follow-up, for patients with I/HPAH and CTD-PAH, respectively: median duration of macitentan exposure observed was 14.0 and 15.8 months; 79.0 and 83.0% experienced an adverse event; Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% confidence limits [CL]) of patients free from all-cause hospitalization at 1 year were 60.3% (58.1, 62.4) and 59.3% (56.1, 62.3); and Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% CL) of survival at 1 year were 90.5% (89.1, 91.7) and 90.6% (88.6, 92.3). CONCLUSIONS: Macitentan was used in clinical practice in patients with CTD-PAH and its subgroups, including as combination therapy. The safety and tolerability profile of macitentan in patients with CTD-PAH was comparable to that of patients with I/HPAH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OPsumit® Users Registry (OPUS): NCT02126943; Opsumit® Historical Users cohort (OrPHeUS): NCT03197688; www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Graphical abstract available for this article.

Comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, functional and haemodynamic variables in pulmonary arterial hypertension: insights from REPAIR.

Background: Measures that can detect large treatment effects are important for monitoring therapeutic effectiveness. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines highlight the importance of imaging in monitoring disease status and treatment response in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Are the standardised treatment effect sizes (STES) of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) comparable with functional and haemodynamic variables? Methods: REPAIR (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02310672) was a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, open-label, 52-week phase 4 study evaluating the effect of macitentan 10 mg, with or without a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i), on right ventricular (RV) remodelling, cardiac function and cardiopulmonary haemodynamics. Both cMRI and functional assessments were performed at screening and at weeks 26 and 52; haemodynamic measurements were conducted at screening and week 26. In this post hoc analysis, STES were estimated using the parametric Cohen's d and non-parametric Cliff's delta tests. Results: At week 26, large STES (Cohen's d) were observed for 10 of the 20 cMRI variables assessed, including the prognostic measures of RV and left ventricular stroke volume and RV ejection fraction and the haemodynamic trial end-point, pulmonary vascular resistance; medium STES were observed for 6-min walk distance (6MWD). The STES were consistent in treatment-naïve patients and those escalating therapy and maintained at week 52. Similar results were obtained using the non-parametric Cliff's delta method. Conclusions: The treatment effect of macitentan, alone or in combination with a PDE5i, was comparable for several cMRI and haemodynamic variables with prognostic value in PAH, and greater than that of 6MWD in patients with PAH, highlighting the emerging relevance of cMRI in PAH.

Early selexipag initiation and long-term outcomes: insights from randomised controlled trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Further understanding of when to initiate therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is important to improve long-term outcomes. Post hoc analyses of GRIPHON (NCT01106014) and exploratory analyses of TRITON (NCT02558231) suggested benefit of early selexipag initiation on long-term outcomes, despite no additional benefit versus initial double combination on haemodynamic and functional parameters in TRITON. Post hoc analyses investigated the effect of early selexipag initiation on disease progression and survival in a large, pooled PAH cohort. Data from newly diagnosed (≤6 months) PAH patients from GRIPHON and TRITON were pooled. Patients on active therapy with selexipag (pooled selexipag group) were compared with those on control therapy with placebo (pooled control group). Disease progression end-points were defined as per the individual studies. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for time to first disease progression event up to end of double-blind treatment (selexipag/placebo) +7 days and time to all-cause death up to end of study were estimated using Cox regression models. The pooled dataset comprised 649 patients, with 44% on double background therapy. Selexipag reduced the risk of disease progression by 52% versus control (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66). HR for risk of all-cause death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.46-1.10) for the pooled selexipag versus control group. Sensitivity analyses accounting for the impact of PAH background therapy showed consistent results, confirming the appropriateness of data pooling. These post hoc, pooled analyses build on previous insights, further supporting selexipag use within 6 months of diagnosis, including as part of triple therapy, to delay disease progression.

A randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing two doses of erlotinib for second-line treatment of current smokers with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CurrentS).

OBJECTIVES: Active smokers with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have increased erlotinib metabolism versus non-smoking patients, which reduces exposure. Therefore, an increased erlotinib dose may be beneficial. The CurrentS study (NCT01183858) assessed efficacy and safety of 300mg erlotinib (E300) as second-line therapy in current smokers with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC versus the standard 150mg dose (E150). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (current smokers who failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy) were randomized to receive E150 or E300 until progression/death/unacceptable toxicity. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), disease control rate and safety. RESULTS: A total of 342 patients were screened; the intent-to-treat population comprised 159 E300 patients and 154 E150 patients. Median PFS was 7.0 versus 6.9 weeks with E300 versus E150, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio [HR]=1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-1.33; unstratified log-rank P=0.671). Median OS was 6.8 months in both arms (unstratified HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.32; unstratified log-rank P=0.846). Overall, 89.2% (E300 arm) and 84.4% (E150 arm) experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) of any grade (44.3% and 37%, respectively, experienced grade ≥3 AEs); AEs of special interest were reported in 67.7% and 47.4% of patients, respectively. E300 resulted in higher mean plasma concentrations versus E150, however, this did not improve efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the difference in erlotinib exposure, there was no evidence of an incremental efficacy benefit of a higher erlotinib dose versus the standard dose in this population of highly active smokers.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases: final results of an open-label pilot study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Brain metastases are frequent in patients with metastatic melanoma, indicating poor prognosis. We investigated the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases. METHODS: This open-label trial assessed vemurafenib (960mg twice a day) in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma with non-resectable, previously treated brain metastases. The primary end-point was safety. Secondary end-points included best overall response rate, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received vemurafenib for a median treatment duration of 3.8 (0.1-11.3) months. The majority of discontinuations were due to disease progression (n=22). Twenty-three of 24 patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). Grade 3 AEs were reported in four (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-37.4%) patients and included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in four patients. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 (95% CI, 3.0-5.5) months, and median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 3.9-6.6) months. An overall partial response (PR) at both intracranial and extracranial sites was achieved in 10 of 24 (42%; 95% CI, 22.1-63.4) evaluable patients, with stable disease in nine (38%; 95% CI, 18.8-59.4) patients. Of 19 patients with measurable intracranial disease, seven (37%) achieved >30% intracranial tumour regression, and three (16%; 95% CI, 3.4-39.6%) achieved a confirmed PR. Other signs of improvement included reduced need for corticosteroids and enhanced performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib can be safely used in patients with advanced symptomatic melanoma that has metastasised to the brain and can result in meaningful tumour regression.

Randomized phase III trial of maintenance bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed after first-line induction with bevacizumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAPERL (MO22089).

PURPOSE: Maintenance therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but few studies have compared active agents in this setting. AVAPERL evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those achieving response or stable disease were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to maintenance bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment. RESULTS: In total, 376 patients received induction treatment, 71.9% achieved disease control, and 67.3% were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, with 125 and 128 receiving single-agent bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus pemetrexed treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the bevacizumab plus pemetrexed arm (median, 3.7 v 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < .001) per a stratified model. The PFS benefit extended across age, performance status, smoking history, and induction response (stable disease v partial response) subgroups. Any grade, grade ≥ 3, and serious adverse events occurred more often with bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: In an unselected population of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit compared with bevacizumab alone. The combination was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis from seven randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: his analysis pooled individual patient data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to more thoroughly examine clinical outcomes when adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient data were pooled from the first-line AVF2107, NO16966, ARTIST, AVF0780, AVF2192, and AGITG MAX RCTs and the second-line E3200 RCT. All analyses were based on the intent-to-treat population. To assess differences in time-to-event variables by treatment (chemotherapy with or without placebo vs. chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), stratified random-effects (overall) and fixed-effects (subgroup comparisons) models were used to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The analysis population comprised 3,763 patients (1,773 chemotherapy with or without placebo; 1,990 chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71). The effects on OS and PFS across subgroups defined by chemotherapy backbone (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based), extent of disease (liver metastases only, extensive disease), age (<65, ≥65 years), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, ≥1), and KRAS status (wild-type, mutant) were consistent with the overall analysis. Incidence rates of grade ≥3 hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, wound-healing complications, gastrointestinal perforations, and thromboembolic events were increased with bevacizumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of bevacizumab with chemotherapy resulted in statistically significant increases in OS and PFS for patients with mCRC. The PFS benefit extended across the clinically relevant subgroups examined. The observed safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that reported in individual trials.

Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER-2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

We report the first results from a phase II, open-label study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2-positive locally recurrent (LR) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients were aged ≥18 years with confirmed breast adenocarcinoma, measurable LR/MBC and documented HER-2-positive disease. Patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1, 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent cycle) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1-14) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled; 40 (46%) are still on study treatment. The median follow-up was 8.8 months (range, 0.9-17.1 months). The overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-82%), comprising 7% complete and 66% partial responses. The median progression-free survival interval was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.4 months to not reached [NR]), with 35 events. The median time to progression was 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.5 months to NR), with 33 events. Treatment was well tolerated; main side effects were grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (22%), grade ≥3 diarrhea (9%), and grade ≥3 hypertension (7%). Overall, 44% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events and 13 patients discontinued capecitabine because of toxicity, but continued with bevacizumab and trastuzumab. Heart failure was seen in two patients. The combination of bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and capecitabine was clinically active as first-line therapy for patients with HER-2-positive MBC, with an acceptable safety profile and no unexpected toxicities.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: 15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. FINDINGS: Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49). INTERPRETATION: The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.