Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL): results of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority AVOID neutropenia study.

BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. PATIENT AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21. RESULTS: Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was - 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, - 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23.

Incidence of bone pain in patients with breast cancer treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: an integrated analysis from phase II and III studies.

PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose, glycoPEGylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) recently approved in Europe to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Bone pain-related (BPR) adverse events are commonly associated with G-CSF therapy. This post hoc analysis examined BPR treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in two comparative studies of lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted using integrated data from two double-blind randomized studies in patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel and doxorubicin and treated prophylactically with subcutaneous lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or pegfilgrastim 6 mg once per cycle. BPR TEAEs were defined as arthralgia, back pain, bone pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, musculoskeletal discomfort, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, neck pain, noncardiac chest pain, and pain in extremity. Relationship of BPR TEAEs to study treatment or chemotherapy was also reported by the investigators. RESULTS: The analysis included 306 patients (lipegfilgrastim: n = 151; pegfilgrastim: n = 155). The proportion of patients experiencing BPR TEAEs was similar with lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim (25.2 vs 21.9%, respectively), as was the proportion of patients experiencing BPR treatment-emergent adverse drug reactions (TEADRs) (18.5 vs 16.8%, respectively). No BPR TEADRs were serious, and none led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsevere BPR TEAEs and TEADRs were observed in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and G-CSF; rates of BPR events were similar between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The similar BPR safety profile of lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim provides support for use in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Epoetin theta: efficacy and safety of subcutaneous administration in anemic pre-dialysis patients in the maintenance phase in comparison to epoetin beta.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of epoetin theta and epoetin beta in anemic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not yet receiving dialysis and previously on stable maintenance therapy with epoetin beta. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority study, 288 patients were treated subcutaneously (s.c.) for 24 weeks with epoetin theta (n = 193) or epoetin beta (n = 95). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in hemoglobin (Hb) from a 2-week baseline period to end of treatment (12-week efficacy evaluation period [EEP], weeks 15-26). The non-inferiority limit was 1.0 g/dL (2-sided alpha = 0.05). Weekly doses of epoetin required to maintain Hb levels, dose changes, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were also evaluated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2005-000142-37. RESULTS: Mean Hb values were comparable in both groups at baseline and during the 24-week treatment period. The estimated treatment difference between groups from baseline to EEP was 0.01 g/dL (95% confidence interval: -0.20, 0.22; p = 0.9207 (ANCOVA)), indicating that epoetin theta was non-inferior to epoetin beta. The weekly doses of epoetin theta or epoetin beta were nearly the same and the change from baseline to EEP in patients who switched to epoetin theta (36.6 to 30.0 IU/kg(BW)) was comparable to those continuing epoetin beta therapy (37.7 to 28.3 IU/kg(BW)). The profile and the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were comparable in both groups (17.1% epoetin theta; 14.7% epoetin beta). The most common ADR was hypertension. No patient developed anti-erythropoietin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin theta (s.c.) has efficacy comparable with epoetin beta (s.c.) in pre-dialysis patients with renal anemia based on Hb changes from baseline to end of treatment (non-inferiority). The safety profile was also comparable. Patients could be switched from maintenance treatment with epoetin beta to epoetin theta without relevant dose changes.

Epoetin theta: efficacy and safety of IV administration in anaemic haemodialysis patients in the maintenance phase in comparison to epoetin beta.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of epoetin theta and epoetin beta in anaemic patients with chronic kidney disease, undergoing haemodialysis and previously on stable maintenance therapy with epoetin beta. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind study 270 haemodialysis patients were treated intravenously (i.v.) for 24 weeks with either epoetin theta (n = 180) or epoetin beta (n = 90). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in haemoglobin (Hb) from baseline to end of treatment (efficacy evaluation period, EEP, weeks 15-26). Hb levels, weekly doses of epoetin theta or epoetin beta required to maintain Hb levels, dose changes, safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were evaluated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2005-000143-28. RESULTS: Mean Hb values were similar in both treatment groups at baseline and during the 24-weeks treatment period. The estimated treatment difference between epoetin theta and epoetin beta from baseline to EEP was -0.01 g/dL (95% confidence interval: -0.24, 0.21), p = 0.9021, indicating that the difference between both groups was not statistically significant. The weekly doses of epoetin theta or epoetin beta required to maintain Hb levels were nearly the same. The changes from baseline to EEP in patients who switched to treatment with epoetin theta (95.5-99.7 IU/kg(BW)) were smaller than in patients staying on their epoetin beta therapy (89.0-98.0 IU/kg(BW)). The profile and the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were similar in both treatment groups (21.7% epoetin theta; 22.2% epoetin beta). The most common ADRs were hypertension, headache and arteriovenous fistula thrombosis. None of the patients developed anti-erythropoietin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin theta (i.v.) has a similar efficacy compared to epoetin beta (i.v.) in haemodialysis patients based on Hb changes from baseline to end of treatment (non-inferiority). The safety profile was similar in both groups. Patients could be switched from maintenance treatment with epoetin beta to epoetin theta without relevant dose changes.

Protective effects of licofelone, a 5-lipoxygenase and cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, versus naproxen on cartilage loss in knee osteoarthritis: a first multicentre clinical trial using quantitative MRI.

OBJECTIVE: In a multicentre study to explore the effects of licofelone as a disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug in comparison with naproxen in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), using MRI and x-ray examination. METHODS: Patients with knee OA (n = 355) were randomised to receive either licofelone (200 mg twice a day) or naproxen (500 mg twice a day). MRI and x-ray examinations were performed at baseline, 6 months (MRI only), 12 and 24 months. MRI was used to assess quantitatively changes in cartilage volume, and x-ray examinations (Lyon-Schuss) to measure changes in the mean and minimum joint space width (JSW) in the medial compartment. Questionnaires probing symptoms were completed. Data were presented as intention to treat (ITT) and according to protocol (ATP). RESULTS: Cartilage volume loss in the global joint and medial and lateral compartments was significantly less in the licofelone than in the naproxen group for ITT at 12 and 24 months and for ATP at all times except in the medial compartment. Patients with medial meniscal extrusion had a greater loss of cartilage volume. In these patients, licofelone markedly reduced the cartilage loss for both ITT and ATP at 12 and 24 months. Although licofelone showed less reduction in the JSW than naproxen, this did not reach significance. All clinical variables were improved at 24 months (p<0.001) for both groups, with a good safety profile. CONCLUSION: Licofelone and naproxen were equally effective in reducing OA symptoms; however, licofelone significantly reduced cartilage volume loss over time, thus having a protective effect in patients with knee OA. This study proves the superiority of quantitative MRI over x-ray examinations in a multicentre clinical trial.

Mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) micropellets show similar efficacy and tolerability to mesalazine tablets in patients with ulcerative colitis--results from a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Formulations containing 5-aminosalicylic acid, such as mesalazine, are the gold standard of treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Current oral regimens require the use of large tablets and frequent dosing to reach the recommended treatment dose. Mesalazine micropellets were designed to allow less frequent dosing in an easier to swallow formulation. AIM: To compare the efficacy of mesalazine micropellets with the tablet formulation in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multiple dose clinical trial randomized 362 patients to either mesalazine micropellets or tablets, at a dosage of 3 g/day. The primary efficacy end-point was the incidence of clinical remission within 8 weeks, defined as the sum of clinical activity index components 1-4 (CAI(C1-4)) < or = 2. RESULTS: CAI(C1-4) decreased significantly in both treatment groups within 8 weeks. The micropellet formulation showed confirmatory non-inferiority with statistical significance compared with the tablet formulation, with regard to the incidence of clinical remission (odds ratio in according-to-protocol population 1.008; 95% CI: 0.623-1.632). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The mesalazine micropellet formulation is as effective as tablets in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis, enabling a larger dose to be taken comfortably and conveniently, thereby potentially improving patient compliance, treatment response and quality of life.

Combined scintigraphic and pharmacokinetic investigation of enteric-coated mesalazine micropellets in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing clinical trend to increase the daily dose of mesalazine, which leads to significant compliance issues associated with multiple dosings of current preparations. AIM: To examine the gastrointestinal performance and systemic exposure of a 1.5 g sachet (micropellets) mesalazine formulation, compared with three enteric-coated tablets (500 mg each, Claversal). METHODS: A randomized, two-way, cross-over pharmacoscintigraphic (scintigraphy plus pharmacokinetics) study and a two-way, cross-over, pharmacokinetic-only study were performed in 24 healthy volunteers (12 subjects per investigation). RESULTS: The relative bioavailability of mesalazine was 92% comparing micropellets with Claversal tablets, and the cumulative urine excretion was c. 26% for both preparations, suggesting comparable systemic exposure for the two types of preparation. In the majority of subjects, drug release from the micropellet formulation occurred predominantly in the terminal ileum and ascending colon. The Claversal tablets disintegrated in comparable intestinal sites, albeit at slightly later time points than the micropellets, principally due to slower gastric emptying for the single-unit formulation. CONCLUSION: The 1.5 g micropellet formulation offers comparable delivery properties to the marketed tablets, but with greater convenience of dosing.

[Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) gel in treatment of acute tendopathies. A multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized study]. / Dimethylsulfoxid(DMSO)-Gel zur Behandlung akuter Tendopathien. Eine multizentrische, plazebokontrollierte, randomisierte Studie.

METHOD: In a placebo-controlled double-blind study, 157 patients with acute tenopathies (periarthropathia humeroscapularis or lateral epicondylitis) were randomized to treatment with either DMSO gel 10% applied three times a day (n = 77) or the gel excipient (n = 80). The treatment phase was 14 days long and included four examinations. Treatment was started within 72 hours after the onset of the acute symptoms. RESULTS: Pain of movement under loading and the mobility of the joints were significantly improved after, respectively, 3 and 7 days treatment with DMSO, as compared with placebo. After 14 days on DMSO, a further improvement was observed, and 44% of the patients were pain-free (placebo 9%). In both groups, the substance was well or very well tolerated by more than 90% of the patients. No relevant changes in laboratory results or severe undesired events occurred under treatment. Undesired events were seen in 8 patients receiving DMSO treatment, and in 3 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm that Rheumabene (10% DMSO gel) is suitable for topical use in the treatment of acute tenopathy, producing clinically relevant results with little risk to the patient.