Clinical outcomes for previously treated patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis.

Aim: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy of treatments for previously treated advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. Materials & methods: Databases were searched for studies evaluating treatments for advanced (unresectable and/or metastatic) BTC patients who progressed on prior therapy. Pooled estimates of objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Results: Across 31 studies evaluating chemotherapy or targeted treatment regimens in an unselected advanced BTC patient population, pooled ORR was 6.9%, median OS was 6.6 months and median PFS was 3.2 months. Conclusion: The efficacy of conventional treatments for previously treated advanced BTC patients is poor and could be improved by novel therapies.

What is this article about? Most patients with biliary tract cancer are identified with advanced disease, and almost all go through a worsening of the disease after their first treatment. For patients who go on to receive their next treatment, current guidelines are unclear regarding the best treatment choice. Therefore, we examined the available medical literature and performed an analysis of multiple studies to calculate overall estimates of the clinical value of standard treatments for these patients. Our goal was to develop a benchmark against which to compare the clinical value of new treatments that are currently being assessed in clinical trials. What were the results? We identified 31 studies assessing standard treatments (involving chemotherapy or molecularly targeted treatments) in previously treated advanced biliary tract cancer patients. Across these studies, the objective tumor response rate was 6.9%, median overall survival was 6.6 months and median progression-free survival was 3.2 months. What do the results of the study mean? These results indicate that there is limited clinical value of standard treatments for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer whose disease worsened after first treatment. This medical need could potentially be met by new treatments, such as immunotherapies that restore the immune system's ability to attack cancer cells and thereby prolong patient survival.

Exploratory analyses of clinical trial data used for health technology assessments: a retrospective evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the validity and statistical limitations of exploratory analyses of clinical trial data commonly requested by agencies responsible for determining which medical products may be financed or reimbursed by a healthcare system. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of efficacy and safety analyses conducted for German Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluations with a decision date between 2015 and 2020, and an illustrative safety-related exploratory analysis of data from two phase III clinical trials of verubecestat (an anti-amyloid drug whose development was stopped for lack of efficacy) as would be mandated by the German HTA agency. RESULTS: We identified 422 HTA evaluations of 404 randomised controlled clinical trials. For 140 trials (34.7%), the evaluation was based on subpopulations of participants in the originating confirmatory trial (175 subpopulations were assessed). In 57% (100 of 175), the subpopulation sample size was 50% or less of the original study population. Detailed analysis of five evaluations based on subpopulations of the original trial is presented. The safety-related exploratory analysis of verubecestat led to 206 statistical analyses for treatments and 812 treatment-by-subgroup interaction tests. Of 31 safety endpoints with an elevated HR (suggesting association with drug treatment), the HR for 81% of these (25 of 31) was not elevated in both trials. Of the 812 treatment-by-subgroup interactions evaluated, 26 had an elevated HR for a subgroup in one trial, but only 1 was elevated in both trials. CONCLUSIONS: Many HTA evaluations rely on subpopulation analyses and numerous post hoc statistical hypothesis tests. Subpopulation analysis may lead to loss of statistical power and uncontrolled influences of random imbalances. Multiple testing may introduce spurious findings. Decisions about benefits of medical products should therefore not rely on exploratory analyses of clinical trial data but rather on prospective clinical studies and careful synthesis of all available evidence based on prespecified criteria.

A risk score for predicting mortality in patients with asymptomatic mild to moderate aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information for asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS) from prospective studies is scarce and there is no risk score available to assess mortality. OBJECTIVES: To develop an easily calculable score, from which clinicians could stratify patients into high and lower risk of mortality, using data from the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. METHOD: A search for significant prognostic factors (p<0.01) among SEAS patients was made by a combined judgemental and statistical elimination procedure to derive a set of three factors (age, gender and smoking) that were forced into the model, and four additional factors captured by the data: left-ventricular mass index, bilirubin, heart rate and natural logarithm of C reactive protein. Calibration was done by comparing observed with calculated number of deaths by tenths of calculated risk using coefficients from the simvastatin + ezetimibe group on placebo group patients. RESULTS: Discrimination was good with ROC area of 0.76 for all patients. Estimated probabilities of death were categorised into thirds. An optimised split point of estimated 5-year risk was about 15% (close to the upper 14% tertile split point), with risk 4 times as high in the upper compared to the two lower thirds. The SEAS score performed better than another established high risk score developed for other purposes. CONCLUSION: A new seven factor model for risk stratification of patients with mild to moderate asymptomatic AS identified a high risk group for total mortality with good discrimination properties. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00092677.

Outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" stenosis (defined as aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and mean gradient ≤ 40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcome in patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm²; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67 ± 10 years; ejection fraction, ≥ 55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182 ± 64 versus 212 ± 68 g; P < 0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P = 0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P = 0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P = 0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (≤ 35 mL/m²; n = 223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Impact of baseline severity of aortic valve stenosis on effect of intensive lipid lowering therapy (from the SEAS study).

Retrospective studies have suggested a beneficial effect of lipid-lowering treatment on the progression of aortic stenosis (AS) in milder stages of the disease. In the randomized, placebo-controlled Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study, 4.3 years of combined treatment with simvastatin 40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg did not reduce aortic valve events (AVEs), while ischemic cardiovascular events (ICEs) were significantly reduced in the overall study population. However, the impact of baseline AS severity on treatment effect has not been reported. Baseline and outcomes data in 1,763 SEAS patients (mean age 67 years, 39% women) were used. The study population was divided into tertiles of baseline peak aortic jet velocity (tertile 1: ≤ 2.8 m/s; tertile 2: > 2.8 to 3.3 m/s; tertile 3: > 3.3 m/s). Treatment effect and interaction were tested in Cox regression analyses. The rates of AVEs and ICEs increased with increasing baseline severity of AS. In Cox regression analyses, higher baseline peak aortic jet velocity predicted higher rates of AVEs and ICEs in all tertiles (all p values < 0.05) and in the total study population (p < 0.001). Simvastatin-ezetimibe treatment was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in AVEs in any individual tertile. A significant quantitative interaction between the severity of AS and simvastatin-ezetimibe treatment effect was demonstrated for ICEs (p < 0.05) but not for AVEs (p = 0.10). In conclusion, the SEAS study results demonstrate a strong relation between baseline the severity of AS and the rate of cardiovascular events but no significant effect of lipid-lowering treatment on AVEs, even in the group with the mildest AS.

Observed and predicted reduction of ischemic cardiovascular events in the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis trial.

In the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) trial, combined ezetimibe (10 mg) and simvastatin (40 mg) decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 50% and ischemic cardiovascular event (ICE) risk by 22% compared to placebo. A larger decrease in ICE risk might have been expected for the degree of lipid-lowering observed. This analysis investigated relations between changes in lipoprotein components (LCs), and ICE risk decrease in the SEAS trial in all patients, by severity of aortic stenosis (AS), and compared to results of other clinical trials. A total of 1,570 patients with baseline aortic jet velocity (JV) data, baseline and 1-year low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B, and no ICEs during the first year were included in the analysis. Relations between on-treatment measurements of 1-year LCs and time-to-ICE occurrence were assessed in all patients and in JV tertiles (<2.8, 2.8 to 3.3, and >3.3 m/s). Observed and predicted ICE risk decreases were compared by Cox model. Decreases in LCs after 1 year of ezetimibe plus simvastatin were associated with decreased ICE risk in all patients and in the 2 lower JV tertiles (p <0.05 to <0.001) but not in tertile 3. In JV tertiles 1 and 2, ICE risk decreased by 47% and 36%, respectively, was reasonably well predicted by all LCs, and was consistent with findings from meta-regression analyses in other populations. In conclusion, the degree of lipid lowering by ezetimibe plus simvastatin may predict the extent of ICE risk decrease in patients with mild AS, but ICE risk prediction in patients with more severe AS is confounded by AS-associated cardiovascular events and a shorter interval of exposure to lipid lowering.

Effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HEAAL study): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are effective treatments for patients with heart failure, but the relation between dose and clinical outcomes has not been explored. We compared the effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure. METHODS: This double-blind trial was undertaken in 255 sites in 30 countries. 3846 patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association class II-IV, left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less, and intolerance to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were randomly assigned to losartan 150 mg (n=1927) or 50 mg daily (n=1919). Allocation was by block randomisation stratified by centre and presence or absence of beta-blocker therapy, and all patients and investigators were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was death or admission for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00090259. FINDINGS: Six patients in each group were excluded because of poor data quality. With 4.7-year median follow-up in each group (IQR 3.7-5.5 for losartan 150 mg; 3.4-5.5 for losartan 50 mg), 828 (43%) patients in the 150 mg group versus 889 (46%) in the 50 mg group died or were admitted for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; p=0.027). For the two primary endpoint components, 635 patients in the 150 mg group versus 665 in the 50 mg group died (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.04; p=0.24), and 450 versus 503 patients were admitted for heart failure (0.87, 0.76-0.98; p=0.025). Renal impairment (n=454 vs 317), hypotension (203 vs 145), and hyperkalaemia (195 vs 131) were more common in the 150 mg group than in the 50 mg group, but these adverse events did not lead to significantly more treatment discontinuations in the 150 mg group. INTERPRETATION: Losartan 150 mg daily reduced the rate of death or admission for heart failure in patients with heart failure, reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction, and intolerance to ACE inhibitors compared with losartan 50 mg daily. These findings show the value of up-titrating ARB doses to confer clinical benefit. FUNDING: Merck (USA).

Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperlipidemia has been suggested as a risk factor for stenosis of the aortic valve, but lipid-lowering studies have had conflicting results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 1873 patients with mild-to-moderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. The patients received either 40 mg of simvastatin plus 10 mg of ezetimibe or placebo daily. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, aortic-valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary-artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes were events related to aortic-valve stenosis and ischemic cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 52.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 333 patients (35.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 355 patients (38.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.12; P=0.59). Aortic-valve replacement was performed in 267 patients (28.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 278 patients (29.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P=0.97). Fewer patients had ischemic cardiovascular events in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (148 patients) than in the placebo group (187 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97; P=0.02), mainly because of the smaller number of patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting. Cancer occurred more frequently in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (105 vs. 70, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin and ezetimibe did not reduce the composite outcome of combined aortic-valve events and ischemic events in patients with aortic stenosis. Such therapy reduced the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but not events related to aortic-valve stenosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677.)

Design of the heart failure endpoint evaluation of AII-antagonist losartan (HEAAL) study in patients intolerant to ACE-inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, angiotensin receptor blockers have been found to reduce mortality and morbidity and to prevent or reverse left ventricular remodelling, compared to optimized background treatment. In light of these data, The Heart failure Endpoint evaluation of Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (HEAAL) study was developed to determine whether losartan 150 mg is superior to losartan 50 mg (antihypertensive dose) in reducing morbidity and mortality among patients with symptomatic heart failure who are intolerant of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors. AIMS/METHODS: To compare the effect of high and moderate doses of losartan on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation due to heart failure in patients (n = 3834) with symptomatic heart failure and an ejection fraction < or = 40% who are intolerant of ACE-inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: This paper presents the rationale, trial design, and baseline characteristics of the study population. The study, which completed recruitment on 31 March 2005, is event-driven and is estimated to accrue the target of 1710 adjudicated primary events during the latter half of 2008. CONCLUSIONS: The results of HEAAL should facilitate selection of an optimal dosing regimen for losartan in patients with symptomatic heart failure who are intolerant of ACE-inhibitors.

Design and baseline characteristics of the simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis (SEAS) study.

Aortic valve stenosis and atherosclerotic disease have several risk factors in common, in particular, hypercholesterolemia. Histologically, the diseased valves appear to have areas of inflammation much like atherosclerotic plaques. The effect of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of aortic stenosis (AS) is unclear, and there are no randomized treatment trials evaluating cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in such patients. The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of a minimum 4 years' duration investigating the effect of lipid lowering with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day in patients with asymptomatic AS with peak transvalvular jet velocity 2.5 to 4.0 m/s. Primary efficacy variables include aortic valve surgery and ischemic vascular events, including cardiovascular mortality, and second, the effect on echocardiographically evaluated progression of AS. The SEAS Study randomly assigned 1,873 patients (age 68+/-10 years, 39% women, mean transaortic maximum velocity 3.1+/-0.5 m/s) from 173 sites. Other baseline characteristics were mean blood pressure of 145+/-20/82+/-10 mm Hg (51% hypertensive); 55% were current or previous smokers; and most were overweight (mean body mass index 26.9 kg/m2). At baseline, mean total cholesterol was 5.7+/-1.0 mmol/L (222 mg/dl), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 3.6+/-0.9 mmol/L (139 mg/dl), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.5+/-0.4 mmol/L (58 mg/dl), and triglycerides were 1.4+/-0.7 mmol/L (126 mg/dl). The SEAS Study is the largest randomized trial to date in patients with AS and will allow determination of the prognostic value of aggressive lipid lowering in such patients.

Rofecoxib in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rofecoxib and ibuprofen for acute migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib was effective and well tolerated in a previous study of treatment of a single migraine attack. We sought to replicate these findings for a single attack and also study the clinical profile of rofecoxib in the acute treatment of multiple migraine attacks. Ibuprofen was included as a reference nonselective NSAID. METHODS: Adult migraineurs (n = 783) treated one migraine attack with either rofecoxib (25 or 50 mg), ibuprofen 400 mg, or placebo in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients could elect to enroll in a 3-month double-blind extension phase. RESULTS: In the single-attack phase, headache relief at 2 hours postdose was reported by 59.4%, 62.2%, and 57.7% of patients who took rofecoxib 25 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg, respectively, versus 30.5% for placebo (all P < .001 vs placebo). The active drugs were statistically superior to placebo on a variety of additional measures. In the extension phase, the mean percentage of patients' attacks with headache relief at 2 hours postdose was 61.8% for rofecoxib 25 mg, 65.4% for rofecoxib 50 mg, and 59.3% for ibuprofen 400 mg. The mean percentage of patients' attacks with 24-hour sustained headache relief was greater for rofecoxib 50 mg (52.0%) than for rofecoxib 25 mg (47.8%, P < .050) or ibuprofen (39.0%, P < .010). In the single-attack phase, the adverse event rate was higher for rofecoxib 50 mg (37.8%) than placebo (27.8%, P < .050); rates were similar to placebo for rofecoxib 25 mg (32.0%, n.s.) and ibuprofen 400 mg (28.1%, n.s.). In the extension phase, treatment groups had similar adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were effective and generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine.

Montelukast for migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of montelukast 20 mg in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: A previous small open-label study in migraine patients suggested prophylactic efficacy for montelukast, an antagonist of the cysteinyl leukotriene receptor that is used in the treatment of asthma. We sought to confirm these findings in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups study enrolled adult migraine outpatients who experienced > or =3 and < or =8 migraine attacks per month for the last 6 months. Patients were entered into a 2-month, single-blind, placebo run-in phase. Only patients who experienced > or =3 migraine attacks in the second month were eligible to enter the subsequent 3-month, double-blind treatment phase of the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients reporting at least a 50% decrease in migraine attack frequency per month during the double-blind treatment period (months 3-5) compared to baseline (run-in month 2). RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized to montelukast 20 mg and 84 patients to placebo at the end of the placebo run-in month 2; 76 patients on montelukast and 72 patients on placebo completed the double-blind treatment period. Over 3 months of treatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the percentage of patients who reported at least a 50% decrease in migraine attack frequency per month: 15.4% for montelukast versus 10.3% for placebo (P= .304). In addition, montelukast 20 mg was not significantly superior to placebo on any of the secondary endpoints. There were no differences between treatment groups for adverse events. CONCLUSION: Montelukast 20 mg was well tolerated in migraine patients but was not an effective prophylactic for prevention of migraine.

A comparison of visual analog scale and categorical ratings of headache pain in a randomized controlled clinical trial with migraine patients.

A visual analog scale (VAS) method of assessing headache pain was compared with a standard categorical four-grade scale (4GS) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial involving 792 treated migraine outpatients who received oral rizatriptan 5 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, or placebo for a moderate or severe headache. The VAS and 4GS were equally useful in demonstrating that the active drugs were superior to placebo at reducing headache pain, and in showing that the active drugs were similarly effective. For both rizatriptan and sumatriptan, slightly larger effect sizes were observed with the 4GS compared with the VAS. In analyses using data combined across all treatment groups, VAS and 4GS scores were highly correlated. Use of the VAS imposed additional administrative burdens. These findings suggest that the 4GS may be the preferred scale for assessing headache pain in clinical trials involving adult migraineurs.