Two Phase 3 Trials of Adalimumab for Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a painful, chronic inflammatory skin disease with few options for effective treatment. In a phase 2 trial, adalimumab, an antibody against tumor necrosis factor α, showed efficacy against hidradenitis suppurativa. METHODS: PIONEER I and II were similarly designed, phase 3 multicenter trials of adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, with two double-blind, placebo-controlled periods. In period 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 40 mg of adalimumab weekly or matching placebo for 12 weeks. In period 2, patients were reassigned to adalimumab at a weekly or every-other-week dose or to placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was a clinical response, defined as at least a 50% reduction from baseline in the abscess and inflammatory-nodule count, with no increase in abscess or draining-fistula counts, at week 12. RESULTS: We enrolled 307 patients in PIONEER I and 326 in PIONEER II. Clinical response rates at week 12 were significantly higher for the groups receiving adalimumab weekly than for the placebo groups: 41.8% versus 26.0% in PIONEER I (P=0.003) and 58.9% versus 27.6% in PIONEER II (P<0.001). Patients receiving adalimumab had significantly greater improvement than the placebo groups in rank-ordered secondary outcomes (lesions, pain, and the modified Sartorius score for disease severity) at week 12 in PIONEER II only. Serious adverse events in period 1 (excluding worsening of underlying disease) occurred in 1.3% of patients receiving adalimumab and 1.3% of those receiving placebo in PIONEER I and in 1.8% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, in PIONEER II. In period 2, the rates of serious adverse events were 4.6% or less in all the groups in both studies, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adalimumab (40 mg weekly), as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly higher clinical response rates in both trials at 12 weeks; rates of serious adverse events were similar in the study groups. (Funded by AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01468207 and NCT01468233 for PIONEER I and PIONEER II, respectively.).

Plasma biomarker signature associated with improved survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients on linifanib.

OBJECTIVES: Linifanib, a potent and selective inhibitor of the tyrosine kinase activity of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, has clinical activity in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both as monotherapy in the relapsed setting or with carboplatin and paclitaxel in the first-line setting. Though benefit was observed in unselected patient populations, identification of predictive biomarkers is critical for further development of this novel agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 4 randomized studies in relapsed NSCLC with linifanib (n=116) or other treatments (n=125) were examined in an exploratory analysis to identify a biomarker profile predictive of favorable survival. RESULTS: A signature combining the established tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1) was predictive of a favorable outcome. This signature was associated with improved survival in patients receiving linifanib monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0.51 vs signature negative; p=0.002), but not in those receiving other anti-cancer treatments (p=0.716). This signature was validated on baseline plasma samples from patients enrolled in a randomized trial of daily linifanib 7.5 mg, linifanib 12.5 mg, or placebo added to first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for advanced, nonsquamous NSCLC. Only linifanib-treated signature-positive patients had significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS with placebo was 5.2 months versus 10.2 months (HR=0.49, p=0.049) for those receiving linifanib 7.5mg, and 8.3 months (HR=0.38, p=0.029) for linifanib 12.5 mg. Overall survival for signature-positive patients was 11.3 months with placebo, 12.5 months with linifanib 7.5mg (HR=1.02, p=0.758), and 17.4 months with linifanib 12.5 mg (HR=0.54, p=0.137). CONCLUSION: This baseline plasma biomarker signature is associated with improved outcome in advanced NSCLC patients receiving linifanib. Utility of the biomarker signature in patient selection for linifanib therapy in NSCLC merits evaluation in larger, prospective trials that are powered to detect a survival benefit.

Randomized phase II study of carboplatin and paclitaxel with either linifanib or placebo for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Linifanib, a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptors, has single-agent activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated linifanib with carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy of advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) with daily placebo (arm A), linifanib 7.5 mg (arm B), or linifanib 12.5 mg (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary efficacy end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were randomly assigned (median age, 61 years; 57% men; 84% smokers). Median PFS times were 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.7 months) in arm A (n = 47), 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 10.8 months) in arm B (n = 44), and 7.3 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 10.8 months) in arm C (n = 47). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS were 0.51 for arm B versus A (P = .022) and 0.64 for arm C versus A (P = .118). Median OS times were 11.3, 11.4, and 13.0 months in arms A, B, and C, respectively. HRs for OS were 1.08 for arm B versus A (P = .779) and 0.88 for arm C versus A (P = .650). Both linifanib doses were associated with increased toxicity, including a higher incidence of adverse events known to be associated with VEGF/PDGF inhibition. Baseline plasma carcinoembryonic antigen/cytokeratin 19 fragments biomarker signature was associated with PFS improvement and a trend toward OS improvement with linifanib 12.5 mg. CONCLUSION: Addition of linifanib to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS (arm B), with a modest trend for survival benefit (arm C) and increased toxicity reflective of known VEGF/PDGF inhibitory effects.

Linifanib versus Sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.

Randomized phase II open-label study of mFOLFOX6 in combination with linifanib or bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, second-line CRC treatment is limited. In this trial we examined the efficacy and safety of linifanib, an oral, potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor families, with mFOLFOX6, compared with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6, in previously treated metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with advanced CRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine or irinotecan received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenous), low-dose linifanib (7.5 mg), or high-dose linifanib (12.5 mg), with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in PFS occurred between bevacizumab and linifanib doses (low, hazard ratio [HR], 1.453 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.830-2.539]; high, HR, 1.257 [95% CI, 0.672-2.351]). Median OS values were similar for bevacizumab and high-dose linifanib (bevacizumab, 16.5 months [95% CI, 13.0-not available]; high-dose linifanib, 16.4 months [95% CI, 11.9-21.7]; low-dose linifanib, 12.0 months [95% CI, 10.1-13.0]). ORRs were similar (bevacizumab, 34.7% [95% CI, 21.7-49.6]; low-dose linifanib, 24.0% [95% CI, 13.1-38.2]; high-dose linifanib, 22.4% [95% CI, 11.8-36.6]). Median cycles of 5-fluorouracil were reduced in the linifanib arms, versus the bevacizumab arm. Grade 3/4 adverse event occurrences were more frequent with linifanib. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and thrombocytopenia were more common with high-dose linifanib than bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Combining linifanib with mFOLFOX6 as a second-line treatment for metastatic CRC did not improve PFS, radiographic findings, or duration of response versus bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6.

A phase 1 study of linifanib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of Japanese patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

INTRODUCTION: Linifanib is a potent, orally active, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor kinase activities with clinical efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 1 dose-escalation study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of linifanib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Carboplatin (AUC = 6 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m²) were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle up to a maximum of six cycles. Oral linifanib (7.5 mg) was given to six patients once daily throughout all cycles and escalated to 12.5 mg/day in a second cohort of six patients. RESULTS: Twelve patients received at least one dose of linifanib. The most common adverse events were hematologic and consistent with expected toxicities with carboplatin/paclitaxel. With 12.5 mg linifanib, grade 3/4 neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 100, 83, and 83 % of patients, respectively. Dose-limiting grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in one patient at each dose level. Linifanib pharmacokinetics was similar to that in non-Japanese patients. At 12.5 mg, linifanib Cmax was 0.32 µg/mL and AUC24 was 4.29 µg h/mL. Linifanib Cmax occurred at 2-3 h with both doses and when given alone or in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Exposure to linifanib appeared to be increased by carboplatin/paclitaxel, and exposure to paclitaxel appeared to be increased by linifanib. Partial responses were observed in nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Linifanib added to carboplatin/paclitaxel is well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC. The recommended dose of linifanib with carboplatin/paclitaxel is 12.5 mg, same as for US patients.

Effects of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with mixed dyslipidemia on atorvastatin therapy: randomized, placebo-controlled study (FIRST).

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether adding a fibrate to statin therapy reduces residual cardiovascular risk associated with elevated triglycerides and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, The Evaluation of Choline Fenofibrate (ABT-335) on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness (cIMT) in Subjects with Type IIb Dyslipidemia with Residual Risk in Addition to Atorvastatin Therapy (FIRST) trial evaluated the effects of fenofibric acid (FA) treatment on cIMT in patients with mixed dyslipidemia on atorvastatin. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in patients with mixed dyslipidemia (fasting triglycerides, ≥150 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ≤45 [men] or 55 mg/dL [women]; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ≤100 mg/dL once and averaging ≤105 mg/dL) and a history of coronary heart disease or risk equivalent. Patients on background atorvastatin (continued on starting dose or titrated to 40 mg, if needed) were randomized to FA 135 mg or placebo. The primary end point was rate of change from baseline through week 104 of the mean posterior-wall cIMT, measured by ultrasound. In patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol while on atorvastatin background therapy, rate of change in posterior-wall cIMT was similar with FA plus atorvastatin (-0.006 mm/y) versus atorvastatin monotherapy (0.000 mm/y; P=0.22). FA plus atorvastatin was favored (P<0.05) in 5 of 24 prespecified subgroups: age ≥60 years, history of coronary artery disease, cIMT >0.795 mm, triglycerides 170 to 235 mg/dL, and statin use at entry. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of both drugs; however, FA plus atorvastatin was associated with a greater incidence of renal-related adverse events compared with atorvastatin monotherapy (6.5% versus 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with atorvastatin monotherapy, FA plus atorvastatin did not further decrease cIMT progression in high-risk patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Results of a phase I, open-label, randomized, crossover study evaluating the effects of linifanib on QTc intervals in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Linifanib is a selective inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor family of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The purpose of this high-precision QT study was to evaluate the effects of linifanib on cardiac repolarization in patients with advanced metastatic tumors. METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 24) had measurable disease refractory to standard therapies, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomized in a 2-sequence, 2-period crossover design. Serial ECG measurements and pharmacokinetic samples were collected for each crossover period. An intersection-union test was performed for time-matched baseline-adjusted QTcF intervals. An exposure-response analysis was explored to correlate the plasma concentration and QTcF. RESULTS: The maximum 95 % upper confidence bound for the baseline-adjusted QTcF was 4.3 ms at hour 3 at the maximum tolerated linifanib dose of 0.25 mg/kg. Linifanib did not meet the regulatory threshold (10 ms) for QT prolongation. Exposure-response modeling showed that the QTcF change was not significant at the maximum plasma concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Linifanib does not significantly affect cardiac repolarization in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Exposure-response (safety) analysis to identify linifanib dose for a Phase III study in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths and the fifth most common cancer globally. Hepatocellular carcinoma produces highly vascular tumors that overexpress vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), thus making VEGF a promising therapeutic target. The competitive inhibitor linifanib (ABT-869) has selectivity for VEGF and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptors and minimal activity against unrelated tyrosine and serine and threonine kinases. However, the optimal dosing regimen for linifanib in HCC patients is not yet known. OBJECTIVE: This study attempts to identify a linifanib dose or dosing regimen with an acceptable safety profile for a Phase III study in HCC patients. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of linifanib were characterized from 2 Phase I and 3 Phase II clinical trials. Of the 266 patients evaluated, the median weight was 68 kg (range, 35-177 kg), 64% were male, and 87.6% of patients received an oral solution of linifanib, whereas 12.4% received a tablet formulation. Approximately 95% of patients received drug based on weight, with the remaining on a fixed-dosing regimen. A population PK analysis was conducted to characterize the linifanib exposure for each patient. Linifanib Cmax and AUC derived from the population PK properties were correlated with the rates of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Linifanib PK properties are dose proportional for the 0.10-mg/kg to 0.25-mg/kg once daily dose range and are time independent after repeated oral dosing. The Tmax of linifanib is approximately 3 hours, and the t½ is approximately 1 day. The most common AEs related to linifanib PK were hypertension (P = 0.02 for Cmax and P = 0.01 for AUC), diarrhea (P = 0.001 for Cmax and P = 0.0012 for AUC), proteinuria (P = 0.001 for Cmax and P = 0.002 for AUC), and asthenia (P = 0.03 for AUC). Weight and sex were identified as covariates for Cmax, and sex was identified as a covariate for AUC. The predicted AE range for females was slightly higher compared with males; however, the AE range is tighter for the weight range for fixed dosing compared with weight-based dosing, regardless of sex. CONCLUSIONS: The PK properties of linifanib support a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. Comparison of weight-based and fixed dosing revealed predicted AE rates to be similar, with a tighter AE range for fixed dosing. The safety profile of linifanib, therefore, supports a 17.5 mg fixed starting dose for Phase III clinical studies.

A randomized, double-blind study of fenofibric acid plus rosuvastatin compared with rosuvastatin alone in stage 3 chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often have mixed dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular disease risk. Although statins reduce LDL-C, adding a fibrate may further improve lipid parameters. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized study evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety profile of fenofibric acid (FA) + rosuvastatin (R) combination therapy for improving lipid parameters in patients with stage 3 CKD and mixed dyslipidemia. The study also assessed estimated glomerular filtration rate after study drug washout. METHODS: Patients received FA 45 mg + R (5 mg for 8 weeks, then 10 mg for 8 additional weeks) or R monotherapy (5 mg for 8 weeks, then 10 mg for 8 additional weeks), followed by an 8-week washout period. Primary and secondary end points were percent changes in triglycerides and HDL-C, respectively, from baseline to week 8. RESULTS: FA 45 mg + R 5 mg, compared with R 5 mg, resulted in significant improvements in triglycerides (median % changes: week 8, -38.0% vs -22.4%, P < 0.001; week 16, -42.6% vs -29.7%, P < 0.001) and HDL-C (mean % changes: week 8, 16.9% vs 7.8%, P < 0.001; week 16, 17.3% vs 8.9%, P < 0.001). Adverse event rates were similar between groups (70.7% with FA + R vs 68.6% with R). Mean serum creatinine level at baseline was 1.36 mg/dL in the FA + R group and 1.38 mg/dL in the R group. The final treatment serum creatinine value, defined as the last nonmissing postbaseline value collected within 30 days after the last dose of study drug, was 1.52 mg/dL with FA + R (vs 1.41 mg/dL with R; P < 0.001), which then decreased to 1.39 mg/dL after the 8-week washout (vs 1.42 mg/dL with R). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that, after 16 weeks of therapy, FA + R has an acceptable safety profile and improved TG and HDL-C efficacy versus R. FA + R combination therapy may thus further improve lipid parameters in patients with stage 3 CKD and mixed dyslipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00680017.

Phase 2 trial of linifanib (ABT-869) in patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of linifanib (ABT-869), a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, were assessed in this phase 2, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial. METHODS: Eligible patients had unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma and had received ≤ 1 prior systemic therapy. Patients received oral linifanib at a fasting dose of 0.25 mg/kg,. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at 16 weeks. Tumor response was assessed every 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints included the time to disease progression, overall survival, and objective response rate. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients enrolled, the majority were Asian (89%), had received no prior systemic therapy (82%), had Child-Pugh class A hepatic function (86%), and had hepatitis B virus infection (61%). The estimated progression-free rate at 16 weeks was 31.8% (34.2% for patients with Child-Pugh class A hepatic function), the estimated objective response rate was 9.1% (10.5% for patients with Child-Pugh class A hepatic function), the median time to disease progression was 3.7 months (3.7 months for patients with Child-Pugh class A hepatic function), and the median overall survival was 9.7 months (10.4 months for patients with Child-Pugh class A hepatic function). The most common linifanib-related adverse events were diarrhea (55%) and fatigue (52%). The most common linifanib-related grade 3/4 adverse events were hypertension (25%) and fatigue (14%). Serum levels of biomarkers cancer antigen (CA) 125, cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA)21.1, and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II (PIVKA) demonstrated potential as prognostic indicators of patient response or outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent linifanib was found to be clinically active in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile.

Study design, rationale, and baseline characteristics: evaluation of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia with residual risk in addition to atorvastatin therapy (FIRST) trial.

PURPOSE: Elevated triglycerides (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels contribute to cardiovascular disease risk and can be effectively treated with fenofibric acid. A trial is under way to evaluate the effect of once-daily fenofibric acid or placebo on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) progression in patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved through atorvastatin treatment, but with high TG and low HDL-C levels. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind study, 682 patients were randomized to once-daily delayed-release capsules of choline fenofibrate 135 mg (fenofibric acid [Trilipix(®); Abbott, North Chicago, IL]) or placebo plus atorvastatin treatment after a 2- to 10-week diet and atorvastatin run-in period. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥45 years; posterior-wall common CIMT ≥0.7 mm on at least one side at baseline; fasting results of TG ≥150 mg/dL, and HDL-C ≤45 mg/dL for men or HDL-C ≤55 mg/dL for women at screening while receiving atorvastatin; controlled LDL-C; and known coronary heart disease (CHD) or a CHD risk equivalent. The primary efficacy variable is the rate of change from baseline through week 104 in the mean posterior-wall intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (composite value of left and right sides). CONCLUSIONS: This trial is the first to examine the effect of fenofibric acid on CIMT and the first CIMT trial to select patients with controlled LDL-C and elevated TG and low HDL-C as inclusion criteria. Also, this trial will prospectively evaluate the effect of treatment on LDL particles and address shortcomings of previous CIMT trials.

An open-label, phase 1 study evaluating safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of linifanib (ABT-869) in Japanese patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase 1 study assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of linifanib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients were assigned to one of four sequential cohorts (0.05, 0.10, 0.20, or 0.25 mg/kg) of oral, once-daily linifanib on a 21-day cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed per common terminology criteria for adverse events v3.0; tumor responses were assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. Eleven (61%) received ≥3 prior therapies. Dose-limiting toxicities were Grade 3 ALT increase (0.10 mg/kg linifanib) and Grade 1 T-wave inversion (0.25 mg/kg linifanib) requiring dose interruption for >7 days and discontinuation on day 29. The most common linifanib-related AE was hypertension. Other significant treatment-related AEs included proteinuria, fatigue, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia. Linifanib pharmacokinetics were dose-proportional across 0.10-0.25 mg/kg. Two patients (11.1%) had confirmed partial responses, 12 had a best response of stable disease (11 had stable disease for ≥12 weeks), and four patients were not evaluable due to incomplete data. Four patients (lung cancer, breast cancer, thymic cancer, sarcoma) have continued linifanib for ≥48 weeks (range, 48-96+ weeks). CONCLUSION: Linifanib was well tolerated with promising preliminary clinical activity in Japanese patients. Later-phase global studies examining linifanib efficacy will include Japanese patients.

Phase 1 trial of linifanib (ABT-869) in patients with refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia.

Linifanib, a potent oral inhibitor of fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, has demonstrated promising preclinical single-agent and synergistic anti-leukemic activity in combination with cytarabine. In this phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study, 45 adults with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) received linifanib alone in arm A (n = 29) and linifanib plus intermediate-dose cytarabine in arm B (n = 16). Median treatment duration was 21 days (range 5-110). Linifanib was well tolerated overall. The most common grade 3/4 events were fatigue (arm A) and febrile neutropenia (arm B). The recommended phase 2 dose was 15 mg (alone), and 10 mg (with cytarabine). Evidence of on-target kinase inhibition in patients with FLT3-mutant and wild-type AML was seen. Decreased phosphorylated FLT3 was seen in 3/3 patients with FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) with peripheral blast reductions and in 8/24 (33%) patients with wild-type, D835 or unknown FLT3 mutation. Eight/29 (28%) patients had decreased phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK).

Phase 2 trial of linifanib (ABT-869) in patients with advanced renal cell cancer after sunitinib failure.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of linifanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who were previously treated with sunitinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial of oral linifanib 0.25 mg/kg/day enrolled patients who had prior nephrectomy and adequate organ function. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) by central imaging. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients, median age 61 years (range 40-80) were enrolled (August 2007 to October 2008) across 12 North-American centres. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-4); 43 patients (81%) had clear-cell histology. ORR was 13.2%, median PFS was 5.4 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.6, 6.0) and TTP was the same; median OS was 14.5 months (95% CI: 10.8, 24.1). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea (74%), fatigue (74%) and hypertension (66%), and the most common treatment-related Grade 3/4 AE was hypertension (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Linifanib demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in patients with advanced RCC after sunitinib failure. At 0.25 mg/kg/day, significant dose modifications were required. An alternative, fixed-dosing strategy is being evaluated in other trials.

Phase 2 trial of Linifanib (ABT-869) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed activity and safety of linifanib (ABT-869), a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label trial (NCT00517790), patients who received one to two prior lines of systemic therapy were randomized to oral linifanib 0.10 mg/kg (low dose) or 0.25 mg/kg (high dose) once daily. Tumor responses were assessed by independent central imaging review every 8 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included objective response rate, time to progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Between August 2007 and October 2008, 139 patients were enrolled; 60% had two or more prior regimens, and 88% had nonsquamous cell carcinoma. The objective response rate (low dose and high dose) was 5.0% (3.1 and 6.8%), progression-free rate at 16 weeks was 33.1% (32.3 and 33.8%), median time to progression was 3.6 months (3.6 and 3.7 months), median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (3.5 and 3.6 months), and median overall survival was 9.0 months (10.0 and 8.3 months). The most common linifanib-related adverse events were fatigue (42%), decreased appetite (38%), hypertension (37%), diarrhea (32%), nausea (27%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (24%), and proteinuria (22%). These events were more common in the high-dose group. The most common linifanib-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event was hypertension (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Linifanib is active in advanced non-small cell lung cancer as second- or third-line therapy. Increased adverse event rates were observed at the high dose of linifanib.

Achievement of lipid targets with the combination of rosuvastatin and fenofibric Acid in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) attaining individual and combined targets of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) after treatment with rosuvastatin (R) + fenofibric acid (FA) compared with corresponding-dose R monotherapy. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated data from the T2DM subset of patients with mixed dyslipidemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL, HDL-C <40/50 mg/dL in men/women, and TG ≥150 mg/dL) from 2 randomized studies. Patients included in the analysis (N = 456) were treated with R (5, 10, or 20 mg), FA 135 mg, or R (5, 10, or 20 mg) + FA 135 mg for 12 weeks. Attainment of LDL-C <100 mg/dL, HDL-C >40/50 mg/dL in men/women, TG <150 mg/dL, non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL, ApoB <90 mg/dL, and the combined targets of these parameters was assessed. RESULTS: Treatment with R + FA resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving optimal levels of HDL-C (46.8% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.009 for R 10 mg + FA), TG (60.0% vs. 34.0%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA; 54.0% vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005 for R 20 mg + FA), non-HDL-C (55.1% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.04 for R 5 mg + FA), ApoB (58.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.02 for R 5 mg + FA); and the combined targets of LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG (28.3% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA) and all 5 parameters (26.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.03 for R 10 mg + FA) than corresponding-dose R monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater proportion of T2DM patients achieved individual and combined lipid targets when treated with the combination of R + FA than corresponding-dose R monotherapies.

Combination rosuvastatin plus fenofibric acid in a cohort of patients 65 years or older with mixed dyslipidemia: subanalysis of two randomized, controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease risk increases with advancing age and is further increased in patients with mixed dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and high triglycerides (TG). Combination lipid therapy is an option; however, efficacy and safety data among elderly patients are lacking. HYPOTHESIS: The combination of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid (R + FA) results in more comprehensive lipid improvements than corresponding-dose monotherapies, without additional safety concerns, in elderly patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis evaluated data from patients age ≥ 65 years (n = 401) with mixed dyslipidemia (LDL-C ≥ 130 mg/dL, HDL-C < 40 mg/dL [men] or < 50 mg/dL [women], and TG ≥ 150 mg/dL) in 2 randomized studies. Patients included in this analysis received either monotherapy (as R 5, 10, or 20 mg or FA 135 mg), or combination therapy with R (5, 10, or 20 mg) + FA 135 mg, for 12 weeks. Data were pooled and analyzed, and mean/median percent changes in multiple lipid parameters and biomarkers were compared. RESULTS: Combination therapy decreased LDL-C by 31.8%-47.2% vs 10.6% with FA monotherapy (P < 0.001). Combination therapy also increased HDL-C by 21.9%-27.0% vs 5.9%-9.9% with R monotherapy (P < 0.001), and decreased TG by 48.3%-53.5% vs 20.7%-32.8% with R monotherapy (P < 0.001). In general, safety profiles were consistent between combination therapy and individual monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: In these elderly patients with mixed dyslipidemia, R 5, 10, or 20 mg in combination with FA 135 mg improved the overall lipid profile, without new or unexpected safety issues.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 5 mg in combination with fenofibric acid 135 mg in patients with mixed dyslipidemia - a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mixed dyslipidemia characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated triglycerides (TG), and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) often require combination therapy to improve multiple lipid and nonlipid parameters. This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 5 mg coadministered with fenofibric acid 135 mg in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: A total of 760 patients with TG ≥ 150 mg/dL, HDL-C <40 mg/dL (<50 mg/dL for women), and LDL-C ≥ 130 mg/dL were randomized for a 12-week treatment period to rosuvastatin 5 mg, fenofibric acid 135 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg + fenofibric acid 135 mg. The primary efficacy comparisons were mean percentage changes in HDL-C and TG (rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid vs. rosuvastatin monotherapy), and LDL-C (rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid vs. fenofibric acid monotherapy). RESULTS: Treatment with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid resulted in statistically significant greater improvements in HDL-C (23.0% vs. 12.4%; P < 0.001) and TG (-40.3% vs. -17.5%; P < 0.001), compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy; and LDL-C (-28.7% vs. -4.1%; P < 0.001), compared with fenofibric acid monotherapy. All secondary efficacy variables improved with combination therapy. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with individual monotherapies. No unexpected muscle, hepatic, or renal safety signals were identified with combination therapy versus individual monotherapies. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, rosuvastatin 5 mg + fenofibric acid 135 mg resulted in comprehensive improvements in the lipid profile of patients with mixed dyslipidemia without unanticipated adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid combination therapy versus simvastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia: a randomized, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid (rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid) compared with simvastatin in patients with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG). BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with a statin and a fibrate is one of the treatment options to manage multiple lipid abnormalities in patients with hypercholesterolemia and elevated TGs. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (n = 474) with LDL-C > or =160 mg/dL and < or =240 mg/dL and TG > or =150 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL were treated for 8 weeks with simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, or rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. Primary and secondary variables were mean percent changes in LDL-C comparing rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg, respectively. Additional efficacy variables included non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, HDL-C, TG, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). Safety was evaluated based on data collected for adverse events (AEs), physical and electrocardiographic examinations, vital sign measurements, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C levels from baseline values were observed with the combination of rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg (-47.2%, p < 0.001), rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg (-46.0%, p < 0.001), and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg (-38.9%, p = 0.007) than with simvastatin 40 mg (-32.8%). Significant (p < or = 0.04 for all comparisons) improvements in non-HDL-C, ApoB, HDL-C, TG, and hsCRP levels were also observed with each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses as compared with simvastatin 40 mg. Treatment-related AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. The incidence of serious AEs was 0% with simvastatin 40 mg, 3.4% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, 0.8% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, and 2.5% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. No cases of rhabdomyolysis or drug-related myopathy were reported. CONCLUSION: In patients with high LDL-C and TG levels, combination treatment with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid was well tolerated, and each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses produced greater reductions in LDL-C and improvements in other efficacy parameters, compared with simvastatin 40 mg. [Clinical trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00812955.].