Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective: A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design: Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions: Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results: A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n = 75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n = 73) or everolimus alone (59%; n = 61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n = 37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n = 30) or capecitabine (29%; n = 30). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with trastuzumab and paclitaxel in Asian patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer in BOLERO-1.

BACKGROUND: The current exploratory analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus for treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) advanced breast cancer in the Asian subset of patients in the BOLERO-1 trial. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HER2+ advanced breast cancer, who had not received systemic therapy for advanced disease, were randomized 2:1 to receive everolimus or placebo, plus trastuzumab and paclitaxel. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the full population and in the hormone receptor-negative (HR-) subpopulation. Secondary end points included assessment of the objective response rate, the clinical benefit rate, and safety. RESULTS: In the Asian subset, median PFS was similar in the everolimus (n = 198) and placebo (n = 105) arms in the full analysis set (hazard ratio = 0.82 (95% CI 0.61-1.11)). In the HR- subpopulation, everolimus prolonged median PFS by 10.97 months vs placebo (25.46 vs 14.49 months; hazard ratio = 0.48 (95% CI 0.29-0.79)). In the everolimus arm of the Asian subset, the most common adverse events of any grade were stomatitis (62.2%), diarrhea (48.0%), rash (43.4%) and neutropenia (42.3%). Neutropenia (grade 3: 27.6%; grade 4: 4.6%) and decreased neutrophil count (grade 3: 11.2%; grade 4: 3.6%) were the most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events. Serious adverse events included pneumonia (5.1%), pneumonitis (3.1%), and interstitial lung disease (3.1%). There were three deaths (1.5%) during treatment in the everolimus arm vs none in the placebo arm. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of everolimus plus trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2+ advanced breast cancer in the Asian subset was consistent with that reported previously in the overall population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00876395 . Registered on 2 April 2009.

A dietary supplement to improve the quality of sleep: a randomized placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of a dietary supplement containing polyunsaturated fatty acids, in association with Humulus lupulus extract, on the quality of sleep using the Leeds sleep evaluation questionnaire (LSEQ) in subjects with moderate to severe sleep disorders. METHODS: Randomized placebo-controlled trial, in a Population-based setting. Participants were adult patients 25 to 65 years old with a chronic primary insomnia who volunteered for the study. The tested intervention consisted of two soft gelatine capsules per day, containing either the dietary supplement (active group) or olive oil (placebo group) for a month. Subjects could also volunteer for two ancillary studies on melatonin and actigraphy. Evaluation criteria included i) perception of the quality of sleep at the end of treatment using the LSEQ questionnaire, ii) sleep efficiency measured by one-week actigraphic movement measurement performed before and during the treatment in a subsample of subjects, iii) night melatonin and 6 sulfatoxymelatonin (aMT6S) urine rates in a subsample of subjects. RESULTS: The average of Leeds score was similar in both groups (p = 0.95). A marked improvement in the quality of sleep was observed in both placebo (62%) and active (65%) group (p = 0.52). The evolution of urinary melatonin, aMT6S, and of the Mel/aMT6S ratio showed no differences between the two groups. Sleep efficiency, as measured by actigraphy, improved similarly in both groups during the treatment period, from 72% to 76% and 75% in the active and placebo group respectively (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The dietary supplement had neither effect on the perceived quality of sleep, nor on the melatonin metabolism and sleep-wake cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinical trials.gov:NCT00484497.