Assessing the impact of digital patient monitoring on health outcomes and healthcare resource usage in addition to the feasibility of its combination with at-home treatment, in participants receiving systemic anticancer treatment in clinical practice: protocol for an interventional, open-label, multicountry platform study (ORIGAMA).

INTRODUCTION: Digital patient monitoring (DPM) tools can enable more effective clinical care and improved patient outcomes in cancer. However, their broad adoption requires ease of use and demonstration of real-world clinical utility/impact. ORIGAMA (MO42720) is an interventional, open-label, multicountry platform study investigating the clinical utility of DPM tools and specific treatments. ORIGAMA will begin with two cohorts that aim to assess the impact of the atezolizumab-specific Roche DPM Module (hosted on the Kaiku Health DPM platform (Helsinki, Finland)) on health outcomes and healthcare resource usage, and its feasibility to support at-home treatment administration, in participants receiving systemic anticancer treatment. Other digital health solutions may be added to future cohorts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Cohort A, participants with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), extensive-stage SCLC or Child Pugh A unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma will be randomised to a locally approved anticancer regimen containing intravenous atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech) and local standard-of-care support, with/without the Roche DPM Module. Cohort B will assess the feasibility of the Roche DPM Module in supporting administration of three cycles of subcutaneous atezolizumab (1875 mg; Day 1 of each 21-day cycle) in the hospital, followed by 13 cycles at home by a healthcare professional (ie, flexible care), in participants with programmed cell-death ligand 1-positive, early-stage NSCLC. The primary endpoints are the mean difference in change of the participant-reported Total Symptom Interference Score at Week 12 from baseline (Cohort A) and flexible care adoption rate at Cycle 6 (Cohort B). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and/or the applicable laws and regulations of the country in which the research is conducted, whichever affords the greater protection to the individual. The study received its first Ethics Committee approval in Spain in October 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent in a face-to-face setting. The results of this study will be presented at national and/or international congresses and disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05694013.

Pharmacometric analyses of alectinib to facilitate approval of the optimal dose for the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

Alectinib is an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor approved for treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) models were developed for alectinib and its major active metabolite M4 using phase I/II PK data in crizotinib-failed patients (N = 138). The PK profiles were best described by two separate models with similar structure for both entities: open one-compartment models with sequential zero/first-order input and first-order elimination rate. Body weight with fixed allometric scaling factor on clearance and volume of both entities was the only significant covariate. Bayesian feedback analyses of the PK data collected from Japanese and global treatment-naïve patients in phase III studies (N = 334) confirmed the body weight effect. Landmark Cox proportional hazards analyses of progression-free survival in treatment-naïve patients identified the average molar concentrations of both entities alectinib and M4 during the first 6 weeks of treatment as a significant covariate, with an optimal response achieved for concentrations above 1040 nmol/L. With 600 mg twice daily (b.i.d.), 92% of global patients are above this threshold concentration, compared with only 43% of patients with 300 mg b.i.d. In Japan, where the body weight distribution is lower, the approved 300 mg b.i.d. dose brings about 70% of Japanese patients above this threshold. Logistic regression analyses found no significant relationship between the combined alectinib-M4 molar concentration and first occurrence of adverse events. These pharmacometric results were used to expedite and facilitate regulatory approvals of 600 mg b.i.d. for first-line ALK-positive NSCLC in the United States and European Union in 2017 and in China in 2018.

Pooled overall survival and safety data from the pivotal phase II studies (NP28673 and NP28761) of alectinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A pooled analysis of two open-label phase II studies of alectinib (NP28673 [NCT01801111] and NP28761 [NCT01871805]) demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with crizotinib. Longer-term and final pooled analyses of overall survival (OS) and safety data from the two studies are presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The pooled population totaled 225 patients (NP28673: n = 138, NP28761: n = 87) who received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. OS was defined as the time from date of first treatment to date of death, regardless of cause. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) determined using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Safety was assessed through adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally comparable between the studies. At final data cutoff (October 27, 2017 [NP28673], October 12, 2017 [NP28761]; median pooled follow-up time, ∼21 months), 53.3% of patients had died, 39.1% were alive and in follow-up, and 7.6% had withdrawn consent or were lost to follow-up. Alectinib demonstrated a median OS of 29.1 months (95% CI 21.3-39.0). No new or unexpected safety findings were observed. The most common all-grade AEs included constipation (39.1%), fatigue (35.1%), peripheral edema (28.4%), myalgia (26.2%), and nausea (24.0%). CONCLUSION: Updated results from this pooled analysis further demonstrate that alectinib has robust clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, ALK+ NSCLC pretreated with crizotinib.

Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase III ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Alectinib demonstrated superior efficacy and a safety profile that compared favorably with crizotinib in treatment-naïve ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III ALEX study. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALEX to assess disease burden, treatment-related symptom tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with alectinib versus crizotinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Pre-specified PRO endpoints were: mean change from baseline in symptoms, HRQoL, and functioning; and time to deterioration (TTD) in cough, dyspnea, chest pain, arm/shoulder pain, fatigue, and a composite of three symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain). PRO data were collected using EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires. Raw scores were standardized to a 0-100-point range, with a ≥10-point score change defined as clinically meaningful. TTD was defined as the time from randomization until confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (i.e., a ≥10-point score change from baseline). RESULTS: Baseline completion rates and characteristics were balanced in the PRO-evaluable population (alectinib n = 100, 66%; crizotinib n = 97, 64%). On average, alectinib-treated patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in lung cancer symptoms for longer than crizotinib-treated patients. Between-treatment differences in lung cancer symptoms tended to favor alectinib from 11.1 months (45 weeks) onwards, around the time of median PFS with crizotinib (11.1 months). TTD in lung cancer symptoms was similar between treatment arms, despite longer duration of symptom improvement with alectinib; composite symptom endpoint (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.68]). Duration of clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL was longer with alectinib versus crizotinib (Week 88 vs. Week 68, respectively). Better patient-reported tolerability was observed with alectinib versus crizotinib on common treatment-related symptoms. CONCLUSION: PRO data support the superior efficacy and tolerability of alectinib relative to crizotinib demonstrated in the ALEX study.

Mechanism of Action of Inhaled Insulin on Whole Body Glucose Metabolism in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

In the current study we investigate the mechanisms of action of short acting inhaled insulin Exubera®, on hepatic glucose production (HGP), plasma glucose and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations. 11 T2D (Type 2 Diabetes) subjects (age = 53 ± 3 years) were studied at baseline (BAS) and after 16-weeks of Exubera® treatment. At BAS and after 16-weeks subjects received: measurement of HGP (3-3H-glucose); oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); and a 24-h plasma glucose (24-h PG) profile. At end of study (EOS) we observed a significant decrease in fasting plasma glucose (FPG, 215 ± 15 to 137 ± 11 mg/dl), 2-hour plasma glucose (2-h PG, 309 ± 9 to 264 ± 11 mg/dl), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, 10.3 ± 0.5% to 7.5 ± 0.3%,), mean 24-h PG profile (212 ± 17 to 141 ± 8 mg/dl), FFA fasting (665 ± 106 to 479 ± 61 µM), post-OGTT (433 ± 83 to 239 ± 28 µM), and triglyceride (213 ± 39 to 120 ± 14 mg/dl), while high density cholesterol (HDL-C) increased (35 ± 3 to 47 ± 9 mg/dl). The basal HGP decreased significantly and the insulin secretion/insulin resistance (disposition) index increased significantly. There were no episodes of hypoglycemia and no change in pulmonary function at EOS. After 16-weeks of inhaled insulin Exubera® we observed a marked improvement in glycemic control by decreasing HGP and 24-h PG profile, and decreased FFA and triglyceride concentrations.

Updated Efficacy and Safety Data and Impact of the EML4-ALK Fusion Variant on the Efficacy of Alectinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Global Phase III ALEX Study.

INTRODUCTION: At the prior data cutoff (February 9, 2017) the ALEX trial showed superior investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) for alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive, advanced NSCLC (hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.65, p < 0.001). The median PFS in the alectinib arm was not reached versus 11.1 months with crizotinib. Retrospective analyses suggest that the echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 gene-ALK variant (EML4-ALK) may influence ALK-inhibitor treatment benefit. We present updated analyses, including exploratory subgroup analysis by EML4-ALK variant, after an additional 10 months' follow-up (cutoff December 1, 2017). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib, 600 mg, or crizotinib, 250 mg, until disease progression, toxicity, death, or withdrawal. PFS was determined by the investigators. Baseline plasma and tissue biomarker samples were analyzed by using hybrid-capture, next-generation sequencing to determine EML4-ALK variant. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced. Investigator-assessed PFS was prolonged with alectinib (stratified hazard ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.58). The median PFS times were 34.8 months with alectinib and 10.9 months with crizotinib. EML4-ALK fusions were detectable in 129 patient plasma samples and 124 tissue samples; variants 1, 2, and 3/ab did not affect PFS, objective response rate, or duration of response. Investigator-assessed PFS was longer for alectinib than for crizotinib across EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3a/b in plasma and tissue. Despite longer treatment duration (27.0 months in the case of alectinib versus 10.8 months in the case of crizotinib), the safety of alectinib compared favorably with that of crizotinib. CONCLUSION: Alectinib continues to demonstrate superior investigator-assessed PFS versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive NSCLC, irrespective of EML4-ALK variant.

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib.

Alectinib is approved and recommended as the preferred first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib was assessed with physiologically based PK modeling prospectively and in a clinical study. An open-label study (NCT02621047) investigated a single 300-mg dose of alectinib in moderate (n = 8) and severe (n = 8) hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B/C), and healthy subjects (n = 12) matched for age, sex, and body weight. Physiologically based PK modeling was conducted prospectively to inform the clinical study design and support the use of a lower dose and extended PK sampling in the study. PK parameters were calculated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Unbound concentrations were assessed at 6 and 12 hours postdose. Administration of alectinib to subjects with hepatic impairment increased the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity of the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 136% (90% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-196) and 176% (90%CI 98.4-315), for moderate and severe hepatic impairment, respectively, relative to matched healthy subjects. Unbound concentrations for alectinib and M4 did not appear substantially different between hepatic-impaired and healthy subjects. Moderate hepatic impairment had only a modest, not clinically significant effect on alectinib exposure, while the higher exposure observed in severe hepatic impairment supports a dose adjustment in this population.

Exposure-response analysis of alectinib in crizotinib-resistant ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Alectinib is a selective and potent anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor that is active in the central nervous system (CNS). Alectinib demonstrated robust efficacy in a pooled analysis of two single-arm, open-label phase II studies (NP28673, NCT01801111; NP28761, NCT01871805) in crizotinib-resistant ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): median overall survival (OS) 29.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.3-39.0) for alectinib 600 mg twice daily (BID). We investigated exposure-response relationships from final pooled phase II OS and safety data to assess alectinib dose selection. METHODS: A semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards model analyzed relationships between individual median observed steady-state trough concentrations (Ctrough,ss) for combined exposure of alectinib and its major metabolite (M4), baseline covariates (demographics and disease characteristics) and OS. Univariate logistic regression analysis analyzed relationships between Ctrough,ss and incidence of adverse events (AEs: serious and Grade ≥ 3). RESULTS: Overall, 92% of patients (n = 207/225) had Ctrough,ss data and were included in the analysis. No statistically significant relationship was found between Ctrough,ss and OS following alectinib treatment. The only baseline covariates that statistically influenced OS were baseline tumor size and prior crizotinib treatment duration. Larger baseline tumor size and shorter prior crizotinib treatment were both associated with shorter OS. Logistic regression confirmed no significant relationship between Ctrough,ss and AEs. CONCLUSION: Alectinib 600 mg BID provides systemic exposures at plateau of response for OS while maintaining a well-tolerated safety profile. This analysis confirms alectinib 600 mg BID as the recommended global dose for patients with crizotinib-resistant ALK-positive NSCLC.

Pooled Systemic Efficacy and Safety Data from the Pivotal Phase II Studies (NP28673 and NP28761) of Alectinib in ALK-positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Alectinib demonstrated clinical efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in two phase II studies (NP28761 and NP28673). Here we report the pooled efficacy and safety data after 15 and 18 months more follow-up than in the respective primary analyses. METHODS: Enrolled patients had ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK)-positive NSCLC and had progressed while taking, or could not tolerate, crizotinib. Patients received oral alectinib, 600 mg twice daily. The primary end point in both studies was objective response rate assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The pooled data set included 225 patients (n = 138 in NP28673 and n = 87 in NP28761). The response-evaluable population included 189 patients (84% [n = 122 in NP28673 and n = 67 in NP28761]). In the response-evaluable population, objective response rate as assessed by the IRC was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.0-58.6 [all PRs]), the disease control rate was 78.8% (95% CI: 72.3-84.4), and the median duration of response was 14.9 months (95% CI: 11.1-20.4) after 58% of events. Median progression-free survival as assessed by the IRC was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-11.3) and median overall survival was 26.0 months (95% CI: 21.4-not estimable). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40% of patients, 6% of patients had treatment withdrawn on account of AEs, and 33% had AEs leading to dose interruptions/modification. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled data analysis confirmed the robust systemic efficacy of alectinib in ALK-positive NSCLC with a durable response rate. Alectinib also had an acceptable safety profile with a longer duration of follow-up.

Alectinib versus Crizotinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P<0.001); the median progression-free survival with alectinib was not reached. The results for independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival were consistent with those for the primary end point. A total of 18 patients (12%) in the alectinib group had an event of CNS progression, as compared with 68 patients (45%) in the crizotinib group (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.28; P<0.001). A response occurred in 126 patients in the alectinib group (response rate, 82.9%; 95% CI, 76.0 to 88.5) and in 114 patients in the crizotinib group (response rate, 75.5%; 95% CI, 67.8 to 82.1) (P=0.09). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with alectinib (41% vs. 50% with crizotinib). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with crizotinib, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity in primary treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075840 .).

Effect of alectinib on cardiac electrophysiology: results from intensive electrocardiogram monitoring from the pivotal phase II NP28761 and NP28673 studies.

PURPOSE: Alectinib, a central nervous system (CNS)-active ALK inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer that has progressed following crizotinib treatment. Other ALK inhibitors have shown concentration-dependent QTc prolongation and treatment-related bradycardia. Therefore, this analysis evaluated alectinib safety in terms of electrophysiologic parameters. METHODS: Intensive triplicate centrally read electrocardiogram (ECG) and matched pharmacokinetic data were collected across two alectinib single-arm trials. Analysis of QTcF included central tendency analysis [mean changes from baseline with one-sided upper 95% confidence intervals (CIs)], categorical analyses, and relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib effects on other ECG parameters (heart rate, PR interval and QRS duration) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Alectinib did not cause a clinically relevant change in QTcF. The maximum mean QTcF change from baseline was 5.3 ms observed pre-dose at week 2. The upper one-sided 95% CI was <10 ms at all time points. There was no relevant relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib treatment resulted in a generally asymptomatic exposure-dependent decrease in mean heart rate of ~11 to 13 beats per minute at week 2. No clinically relevant effects were seen on other ECG parameters. Approximately 5% of patients reported cardiac adverse events of bradycardia or sinus bradycardia; however, these were all grade 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib does not prolong the QTc interval or cause changes in cardiac function to a clinically relevant extent, with the exception of a decrease in heart rate which was generally asymptomatic.

Effect of Food and Esomeprazole on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib, a Highly Selective ALK Inhibitor, in Healthy Subjects.

Alectinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, is approved for treatment of patients with ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed, on or are intolerant to, crizotinib. This study assessed the effect of a high-fat meal and the proton pump inhibitor, esomeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib. This was an open-label, 2-group study in healthy subjects. In group 1 (n = 18), subjects were randomly assigned to a 2-treatment (A, fasted conditions; B, following a high-fat meal), 2-sequence (AB or BA) crossover assessment, separated by a 10-day washout. In group 2 (n = 24), subjects were enrolled in a 2-period, fixed-sequence crossover assessment to evaluate the effect of esomeprazole. PK parameters were evaluated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Administration of alectinib following a high-fat meal substantially increased the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 331% (90%CI, 279%-393%) and 311% (90%CI, 273%-355%) for Cmax and AUC0-∞ , respectively, versus fasted conditions. Coadministration of esomeprazole had no clinically relevant effect on the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Alectinib should be administered under fed conditions to maximize its bioavailability, whereas no restrictions are required with antisecretory agents.

Alectinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib confers improved progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but progression invariably occurs. We investigated the efficacy and safety of alectinib, a potent and selective ALK inhibitor with excellent CNS penetration, in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Alectinib 600 mg was administered orally twice daily. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by central independent review committee (IRC). RESULTS: Of the 138 patients treated, 84 patients (61%) had CNS metastases at baseline, and 122 were response evaluable (RE) by IRC. ORR by IRC was 50% (95% CI, 41% to 59%), and the median duration of response (DOR) was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached). In 96 patients (79%) previously treated with chemotherapy, the ORR was 45% (95% CI, 35% to 55%). Median IRC-assessed progression-free survival for all 138 patients was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.3 months). CNS disease control rate was 83% (95% CI, 74% to 91%), and the median CNS DOR was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 11.2 months). CNS ORR in 35 patients with baseline measurable CNS lesions was 57% (95% CI, 39% to 74%). Of the 23 patients with baseline CNS metastases (measurable or nonmeasurable) and no prior radiation, 10 (43%) had a complete CNS response. At 12 months, the cumulative CNS progression rate (24.8%) was lower than the cumulative non-CNS progression rate (33.2%) for all patients. Common adverse events were constipation (33%), fatigue (26%), and peripheral edema (25%); most were grade 1 to 2. CONCLUSION: Alectinib is highly active and well tolerated in patients with advanced, crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib. METHODS: We did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment). INTERPRETATION: Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Examining the safety of PPAR agonists - current trends and future prospects.

INTRODUCTION: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-α and -γ agonists, fibrates and glitazones, are effective treatments for dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively, but exhibit class-related, as well as compound-specific safety characteristics. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the profiles of PPAR-α, PPAR-γ, and dual PPAR-α/γ agonists with regard to class-related and compound-specific efficacy and adverse effects. We explore how learnings from first-generation drugs are being applied to develop safer PPAR-targeted therapies. EXPERT OPINION: The finding that rosiglitazone may increase risk for cardiovascular events has led to regulatory guidelines requiring demonstration of cardiovascular safety in appropriate outcome trials for new type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs. The emerging data on the possibly increased risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone may prompt the need for post-approval safety studies for new drugs. Since PPAR-α and -γ affect key cardiometabolic risk factors (diabetic dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and inflammation) in a complementary fashion, combining their benefits has emerged as a particularly attractive option. New PPAR-targeted therapies that balance the relative potency and/or activity toward PPAR-α and -γ have shown promise in retaining efficacy while reducing potential side effects.

The effect of a combined treatment with propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate on Doppler ultrasound parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare the effect of the treatment with propranolol to that with propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate in portal hypertension, as assessed by Doppler ultrasound parameters in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A prospective study of two groups, each of 30 patients with cirrhosis Child-Pugh A was performed. In one group 40 mg/day propranolol were administered for 6 months and in the other, a combined treatment with propranolol 40 mg/day and isosorbide-5-mononitrate 40 mg/day was administered for 6 months. In all patients the presence of esophageal varices was confirmed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and abdominal ultrasonography and Doppler ultrasonography of the portal vein was performed. The patients were monitored for: the velocity of blood flow in the portal vein, the cross sectional area of the portal vein and the portal vein congestion index. Data analysis used t-Student test, Pearson and Spearman correlation. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: A significant decrease of all parameters after 6 months was observed in the group with combined therapy with propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate (p<0.05). The relative decrease of the cross sectional area of the portal vein and of the portal vein congestion index was more important when patients had higher initial values of the two parameters, indicating an increased hemodynamic impairment (Pearson, p<0.001). In patients treated only with propranolol, the relative decrease correlated with its initial value for all parameters. CONCLUSION: The combined therapy with propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate proved to be superior to the mono-therapy with propranolol in decreasing the hemodynamic parameters in portal hypertension, probably by an additive effect.