Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Results of a Large, Randomized, Multinational, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

Insulin lispro low mixture twice daily versus basal insulin glargine once daily and prandial insulin lispro once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin intensification: a randomized phase IV trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of two insulin intensification strategies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin glargine with metformin and/or pioglitazone. METHODS: A multinational, randomized, open-label trial that compared insulin lispro low mixture (LM25; n = 236) twice daily with a basal-prandial regimen of insulin glargine once daily and insulin lispro once daily (IGL; n = 240) over 24 weeks in patients with HbA1c 7.5-10.5% and fasting plasma glucose ≤ 6.7 mmol/l. The primary objective was to assess non-inferiority [per-protocol (PP) population], and then superiority [intention-to-treat (ITT) population], of LM25 versus IGL according to change in HbA1c after 24 weeks (non-inferiority margin 0.4%, two-sided significance level 0.05). RESULTS: Estimated change [least squares (LS) mean (95% CI)] in HbA1c after 24 weeks: -1.30 (-1.44, -1.16)% with LM25 and -1.08 (-1.22, -0.94)% with IGL. Non-inferiority was shown [LS mean (95% CI) HbA1c treatment difference -0.21 (-0.38, -0.04) (PP population)]; gated superiority assessment showed a statistically significant advantage for LM25 (p = 0.010; ITT population). Mean blood glucose, glycaemic variability, overall tolerability and hypoglycaemic episodes per patient-year did not show significant differences between treatments during the study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on once-daily basal insulin glargine and metformin and/or pioglitazone, intensification with LM25 was superior to a basal-prandial approach in terms of reduction in HbA1c after 24 weeks and did not increase hypoglycaemia episodes.

Clinical outcomes after 24 months of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in five countries: results from the TREAT study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with insulin regimens at initiation, changes in treatment and metabolic control over 2 years of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in five countries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: TREAT was a prospective, 24 month, observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin in clinical practice. Patient characteristics were collected at baseline and metabolic outcomes at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after initiation. RESULTS: A total of 985 patients were enrolled, 886 assessed at baseline and 734 (82.8%) at 24 months. Baseline characteristics varied between countries: 52.8% of patients were men; mean age was 60.4 years; body mass index, 29.7 kg/m²; time since diagnosis, 10.1 years; HbA1c, 9.6%. Less than 25% of patients met ADA/IDF targets for blood pressure/LDL cholesterol. Overall, 50.1% of patients were initiated on long/intermediate insulin, 39.3% on mixture and 7.8% on basal-bolus; distribution varied between countries. Patients on long/intermediate were more likely to have lower baseline HbA1c and be intensified to other regimens (19.4%). No oral antidiabetic medication was used for 16.4% initiating on long/intermediate, 47.4% on mixture and 62.3% with basal-bolus. Overall, mean HbA1c decreased from 9.6% to 7.6%, with little difference between regimens at endpoint. The percentage of patients with hypoglycaemia was highest at 6 months and with basal-bolus. LIMITATIONS: Sites were not selected at random. Drop-out of patients prior to 24 months may have introduced a bias that favoured responders. CONCLUSIONS: Mean baseline HbA1c was high, indicating delayed initiation of insulin treatment. Blood pressure and lipids were suboptimally controlled. Insulin regimens varied between countries, changed little and resulted in similar HbA1c levels after 24 months.

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily in basal-bolus therapies with insulin lispro in type 2 diabetes patients: a prospective randomized open-label trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) versus insulin glargine once daily in a basal-bolus regimen in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-three insulin-treated patients were randomized to either ILPS plus lispro or glargine plus lispro in this open-label 24-week European study. Insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets. Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the change of HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for country and baseline HbA1c) with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. Secondary endpoints included HbA1c categories, BG profiles, insulin doses, hypoglycaemic episodes, adverse events and vital signs. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine in the change of HbA1c from baseline was shown: least-square mean between-treatment difference (95% CI) was 0.1% (-0.11; 0.31). Mean changes at week 24 were -1.05% (ILPS) and -1.20% (glargine). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 21.7 versus 29.4% of patients. Mean basal/mealtime insulin doses at week 24 were 29.6/36.2 IU/day (ILPS) versus 32.8/42.2 IU/day (glargine); the difference was not statistically significant for total dose (p = 0.7). In both groups, 56.1/25.7% versus 63.6/19.3% of patients experienced any/nocturnal hypoglycaemia (p = 0.2 for both). No relevant differences were noted in any other variables. CONCLUSIONS: A basal-bolus regimen with ILPS once daily resulted in non-inferior glycaemic control compared to a similar regimen with glargine, without statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in hypoglycaemia. ILPS-based regimens can be considered an alternative to basal-bolus regimens with glargine for T2DM patients.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively), and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.