Second-line pemetrexed treatment in Taiwanese patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: an open-label single-arm study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Although global and Asian studies on second-line pemetrexed for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer have confirmed its efficacy and safety, a pivotal postcommitment study to consolidate the evidence regarding the Taiwanese population was warranted. This open-label single-arm study assessed the objective response rate to a tailored dose of single-agent pemetrexed in Taiwanese patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer who had received prior chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV disease were treated with pemetrexed on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. A 500 mg/m(2) dose was administered in cycle 1. For cycle 2, the dose was increased to 1000 mg/m(2) (if there was no toxicity above predefined levels) or decreased to 375 mg/m(2). All patients received standard supplemental therapy. Patient follow-up continued until 18 months after the last patient was enrolled in this study or death. All patients were included in all analyses. RESULTS: Of the 33 patients who were enrolled, 25 (75.8%) received the 1000 mg/m(2) dose during cycle 2; 18 patients were dropped from the study, including 17 (51.5%) who had died by the time of analysis. The objective response and disease control rates were 18.2% (95% confidence limits [CI]: 7.0-35.5) and 54.5% (95% CI: 36.4-71.9), respectively. No patients exhibited a complete response. There were two serious drug-related adverse events (neutropenia and leukopenia) and two drug-related adverse events that resulted in removal from the study. Decreased neutrophil/granulocyte counts were the most frequently observed drug-related grade 3/4 events (9 patients, 24 treatment cycles). CONCLUSION: The objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety and tolerability profile in this population of Taiwanese patients were consistent with the published findings that were conducted using Asian and Western populations. These findings support the use of single-agent, second-line pemetrexed for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer in Taiwanese patients.

Phase II, double-blind, randomized trial of capecitabine plus enzastaurin versus capecitabine plus placebo in patients with metastatic or recurrent breast cancer after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy.

Capecitabine is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent/progressive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. With the intention of improving the efficacy of single agent capecitabine, we initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study of the novel serine/threonine kinase inhibitor enzastaurin in combination with capecitabine in a heavily pretreated patient population. Patients received capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily plus enzastaurin 500 mg/day, or capecitabine plus placebo. The capecitabine was administered for the first 14 days of each 21 day cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) using the log-rank test (1-sided significance level of 0.20). Of 109 patients assessed for eligibility, 85 were enrolled, randomized, and treated (42 and 43 patients in each respective treatment group). The study was terminated early following a preplanned futility analysis. Median PFS (95% CI) was 2.8 (2.1-4.6) months with capecitabine plus enzastaurin versus 4.3 (2.9-6.2) months with capecitabine plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.728 [1.00-2.97]; P = 0.048). Median overall survival (95% CI) was lower with capecitabine plus enzastaurin than with capecitabine plus placebo (9.9 [7.0-16.6] months vs 14.9 [9.9-19.3] months, P = 0.181). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine plus enzastaurin (42.9% vs 32.6%). Given the lack of PFS benefit, capecitabine plus enzastaurin is unsuitable as therapy for patients with recurrent/progressive MBC after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. This trial is registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT00437294).

Clobazam in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study evaluated safety and efficacy of clobazam (CLB) as adjunctive therapy for drop seizures in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS). METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with LGS aged 2-26 years were administered CLB (low dose = target 0.25 mg/kg/day; high dose = target 1.0 mg/kg/day). The study consisted of 4-week baseline, 3-week titration, and 4-week maintenance periods, followed by a 3-week taper or continuation in an open-label study. Seizure frequency was recorded in a diary by the parent/caregiver throughout the study. RESULTS: Weekly drop seizure rates were significantly reduced from baseline in both the high-dose and low-dose groups; the reduction was significantly greater in the high-dose group. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the high-dose group experienced reductions in drop seizures of >or=25%, >or=50%, and >or=75% compared to the low-dose group; more patients in the high-dose group experienced a 100% reduction, but the difference was not significant. Nondrop seizures were also reduced in a dose-dependent manner. In both investigator and parent/caregiver global evaluations, patients in the high-dose group showed significantly greater improvements in overall symptoms compared to low-dose CLB. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate, and were similar between dose groups. Five serious adverse events were reported in four patients, but in no case was CLB discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Clobazam was well tolerated and reduced drop seizure rates; high-dose CLB was more effective than low-dose CLB. Other seizure types were also reduced.

A randomized, cross-over comparison of preference between two reusable insulin pen devices in pen-naïve adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate final preference and ease-of-use attributes of two reusable pen injectors, HPS (HumaPen Savvio) and HPL (HumaPen Luxura), in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 1 day, randomized, two-period crossover, open-label, simulated-injection study in 203 pen-naïve subjects (mean age 58.4 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional and ease-of-use attributes of insulin pen injectors were evaluated using a 16-item survey (7 point scale) where higher scores reflected greater preference and equal scores reflected no preference. The primary objective was final pen preference, with statistical gate-keeping to the ease of detecting an insufficient remaining dose (IRD) of insulin upon dose selection. RESULTS: For final overall pen preference, HPS was chosen by 150 of 203 subjects (73.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.3%-79.8%). For the IRD item, 'It is easy to know when there is not enough insulin left in the cartridge for the dose I need before I inject', HPS was preferred by 94 of 107 subjects with a preference (87.9%, 95% CI = 80.1%-93.4%). In 14 of the remaining 15 survey items, 64.3% to 87.7% of subjects with a preference statistically significantly preferred HPS over HPL. To confirm the results, subjects with no preference for either pen, which ranged between 95 and 148, were included in a Bayesian analysis. KEY LIMITATIONS: Injection simulation, use of an unvalidated survey, and office setting which did not allow for direct clinical experience with the devices. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pen-naïve subjects preferred HPS over HPL. For all ease-of-use attributes, the majority of subjects with a preference chose HPS over HPL. Some attributes of both pens were equally acceptable, as many subjects had no preference.