A Phase I/Randomized Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Nintedanib versus Sorafenib in Asian Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor/platelet-derived growth factor/fibroblast growth factor receptors. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in terms of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: For the phase I portion, patients were stratified into two groups according to their alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST) and Child-Pugh score at baseline. For phase I, the primary endpoint was determination of the MTD in terms of DLTs. For phase II, patients with a Child-Pugh score of 5-6, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, and an ALT/AST ≤2× the upper limit of normal were enrolled and randomized 2: 1 to nintedanib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (the MTD determined in phase I) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. continuously in 28-day cycles until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression (PD); treatment beyond PD was allowed if clinical benefit was perceived. The primary endpoint for phase II was time to progression (TTP) by central independent review (CIR; by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS). All analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: The MTD was 200 mg in both groups. For phase II, 95 patients were randomized to nintedanib (n = 63) or sorafenib (n = 32). For nintedanib and sorafenib, respectively, the median CIR TTP was 2.8 vs. 3.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-2.01) and the median OS 10.2 vs. 10.7 months (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.59-1.49). Nintedanib-treated patients had fewer grade 3 or higher AEs (56 vs. 84%), serious AEs (46 vs. 56%), and AEs leading to dose reduction (19 vs. 59%) and drug discontinuation (24 vs. 34%). AEs associated more frequently with nintedanib were vomiting and nausea, whereas those associated more frequently with sorafenib were ALT/AST increases, diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Nintedanib showed numerically similar efficacy to sorafenib for CIR TTP and OS in Asian patients with advanced HCC and adequate liver function. AEs were generally manageable.

mRECIST to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two randomised phase II trials comparing nintedanib vs sorafenib.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been shown to be a poor surrogate for survival benefit with targeted therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We investigated whether response evaluated using modified RECIST (mRECIST) predicted overall survival (OS) using data from two Phase II clinical trials. Analyses were conducted on pooled data from 188 patients with advanced HCC treated with nintedanib or sorafenib, of whom 180 were evaluable for response. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to explore differences in OS between the responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.0 and mRECIST criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, including factors known to influence survival, were used to compare survival according to RECIST and mRECIST response. RESULTS: Discordance between RECIST and mRECIST evaluation was most common for assessment of partial response (12.2%) and stable disease (13.3%). OS was significantly longer in patients with response compared to patients without response-RECIST: hazard ratio (HR) 0.325 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.130-0.815), P=.0122; mRECIST: HR 0.544 (95% CI 0.335-0.881), P=.0122. HRs from the multivariate models used to evaluate response by RECIST or by mRECIST as predictors of OS approached significance for RECIST (0.40 [95% CI 0.16-1.01]; P=.053) and for mRECIST (0.62 [95% CI 0.38-1.01]; P=.053). CONCLUSIONS: Response according to RECIST or mRECIST is associated with improved survival and should be considered as a valid endpoint for use in HCC clinical trials.

Rationale and Design for the LUME-Colon 1 Study: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Nintedanib Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Placebo Plus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies of antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have demonstrated that angiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) tumor growth and metastasis. Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor of VEGF, platelet-derived growth factor, and fibroblast growth factor signaling. Nintedanib, combined with docetaxel, has been approved in the European Union for the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with adenocarcinoma tumor histologic type after first-line chemotherapy. The objective of the present study (1199.52; clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02149108; LUME-Colon 1) is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nintedanib plus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy regimens and biologic agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 764 patients worldwide will be randomized 1:1 to receive either nintedanib 200 mg twice daily plus BSC or placebo plus BSC in 21-day courses until disease progression, undue toxicity, or withdrawal of informed consent. The primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are the objective tumor response and disease control. PFS and OS will be evaluated using a log-rank test to determine the effect of nintedanib independently at the 2-sided α-level of 0.05. Other assessments will include the frequency and severity of adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters to measure the safety, health-related quality of life, and pharmacogenomic analyses, focusing on exploring the predictive biomarkers and drug-resistance mechanisms. The results are expected in 2016.

Anti-angiogenic-specific adverse events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with nintedanib and docetaxel.

OBJECTIVES: LUME-Lung 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial investigating nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with nintedanib+docetaxel in the overall population and overall survival was significantly improved in the pre-specified analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the frequency of characteristic adverse events (AEs) commonly seen with existing anti-angiogenic agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The incidence and intensity of AEs were evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication (N=1307) and for the two main histologies: adenocarcinoma (n=653) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; n=553). AEs of special interest were analyzed by category, preferred term, and worst CTCAE grade and included perforation, hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events, and skin disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The incidence of patients with all-grade gastrointestinal (GI) perforations was low and balanced between arms (0.5% in both) and across histologies; the incidence of non-GI perforations was 1.2% with nintedanib+docetaxel versus 0.2% with placebo+docetaxel. The incidence of some events was higher with nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel; hypertension (3.5% vs 0.9%), rash (11.0% vs 8.1%), and cutaneous adverse reactions (13.0% vs 10.7%). Rash and cutaneous adverse reactions were predominantly Grade 1-2 with both treatments. The incidence of all-grade bleeding was also slightly higher in nintedanib+docetaxel-treated patients (14.1% vs 11.6%) driven by between-treatment differences in the SCC subpopulation; most events were Grade 1-2. The proportion of patients with a thromboembolic event was low and comparable between arms for all grades (5.1% vs 4.6%) and Grade ≥3 (2.1% vs 3.1%). Safety evaluation of the LUME-Lung 1 study showed that the frequency of AEs commonly associated with other anti-angiogenic agents was lower with nintedanib+docetaxel. Survival benefits from addition of nintedanib to docetaxel in patients with adenocarcinoma after first-line therapy can be achieved alongside a manageable safety profile.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of afatinib with rifampicin and ritonavir.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Afatinib is a potent, irreversible, ErbB family blocker in clinical development for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic head and neck cancer, and other solid tumours. As afatinib is a substrate for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) pump transporter the three studies presented here investigated the pharmacokinetics of afatinib in the presence of a potent inhibitor (ritonavir) or inducer [rifampicin (rifampin)] of P-gp. METHODS: We conducted phase I, open-label, single-centre studies in healthy male volunteers who received a single once-daily oral dose of afatinib (20 or 40 mg) together with either ritonavir or rifampicin; two studies had a randomised, two- and three-way crossover design and the third was a non-randomised, two-period sequential study. RESULTS: When afatinib 20 mg was administered 1 h after ritonavir, afatinib geometric mean (gMean) maximum plasma concentration (C max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞) increased by 38.5 and 47.6 %, respectively. Coadministration of ritonavir either simultaneously or 6 h later than afatinib 40 mg resulted in minimal increase in the afatinib gMean C max and AUC∞ (4.1 and 18.6 % for simultaneous administration with AUC∞ not completely within the bioequivalence limits; 5.1 and 10.8 % for timed administration within the bioequivalence limits). Administration of afatinib 40 mg in the presence of rifampicin led to reduction in C max and AUC∞ by 21.6 and 33.8 %, respectively. In all studies, P-gp modulation mainly affected the extent of absorption of afatinib; there was no change in the terminal elimination half-life. The overall safety profile of afatinib was acceptable. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of potent P-gp modulators had no clinically relevant effect on afatinib exposure. Effects of potent P-gp inhibitors were minimal at higher afatinib doses and can be readily managed by the timing of concomitant therapy. As afatinib is not a relevant modulator or substrate of cytochrome P450 enzymes, the drug-drug interaction potential is considered to be low.