Abstract: Olaparib (AZD2281) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations.
Abstract: As the first approved epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapy for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the clinical development of gefitinib was complex. Advances in scientific understanding of the target biology during its clinical development enabled the identification of a biomarker to define patients most likely to derive benefit from gefitinib. Initial phase II trials showed clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity in 12-18% of unselected pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC at the optimum biological dose (250 mg). Subgroup analyses of these and subsequent phase III trials in unselected patients suggested that EGFR mutation and some clinical characteristics associated with a higher incidence of EGFR mutation (Asian ethnicity, adenocarcinoma histology, never-smoking and female sex) were linked with increased response to gefitinib. Consequently, the IRESSA Pan-Asia Study (IPASS) was conducted in never-smokers or former light-smokers in East Asia who had adenocarcinoma of the lung. IPASS showed that EGFR mutation was the strongest predictor of improved progression-free survival (mutation-positive subgroup hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.64 (p<0.001, n = 261); mutation-negative subgroup HR 2.85, 95% CI 2.05-3.98 (p<0.001, n = 176); interaction test p<0.001) with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC. Important lessons for the development of future personalised medicines are discussed.
Abstract: PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.
Abstract: This phase II randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole combined with gefitinib or anastrozole with placebo in women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS: 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION: INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The ISEL (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of gefitinib versus placebo in pretreated nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. Two different antibodies, scoring systems, and cutoff points of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression were compared to predict response and survival of enrolled patients. METHODS: EGFR expression was assessed in tumor samples by immunohistochemistry using the Dako EGFR pharmDx kit (scoring percent of tumor cells with positive staining) and Zymed monoclonal antibody clone 31G7 (scoring staining index derived from proportion of positive cells times staining intensity). RESULTS: Data for EGFR expression were available for 379 patients for Dako and 357 patients for Zymed antibody (22% and 21%, respectively, of trial population). Objective response rates in gefitinib-treated EGFR-positive patients defined with various cutpoints with Dako antibody varied between 8% and 12%, and with Zymed antibody between 10% and 13%. Lower cutoff points with Dako antibody provided the best discrimination between EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative patients for survival hazard ratios comparing gefitinib to placebo, with a significant treatment/cutoff point interaction for 10% cutoff point (P = .049). A similar but less apparent trend was noted for Zymed antibody, although the discrimination between hazard ratios was not significant for any cutoff point analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment with the Dako PharmDx kit and percentage of cells with positive staining may provide more accurate prediction of differential effect on survival with gefitinib than assessment with Zymed antibody and staining index. Using higher cutpoints to define positivity does not improve test discrimination.
Abstract: RATIONALE: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) occurs in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving gefitinib. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate risk factors for ILD in Japanese patients with NSCLC during treatment with gefitinib or chemotherapy. METHODS: In a prospective epidemiologic cohort, 3,166 Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent NSCLC were followed for 12 weeks on 250 mg gefitinib (n = 1,872 treatment periods) or chemotherapy (n = 2,551). Patients who developed acute ILD (n = 122) and randomly selected control subjects (n = 574) entered a case-control study. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from case-control data by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression. Crude (observed) incidence rates and risks were calculated from cohort data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The observed (unadjusted) incidence rate over 12 weeks was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) per 1,000 person-weeks, 4.5 (3.5-5.4) for gefitinib versus 1.7 (1.2-2.2) for chemotherapy; the corresponding observed naive cumulative incidence rates at the end of 12-week follow-up were 4.0% (3.0-5.1%) and 2.1% (1.5-2.9%), respectively. Adjusted for imbalances in risk factors between treatments, the overall OR for gefitinib versus chemotherapy was 3.2 (1.9-5.4), elevated chiefly during the first 4 weeks (3.8 [1.9-7.7]). Other ILD risk factors in both groups included the following: older age, poor World Health Organization performance status, smoking, recent NSCLC diagnosis, reduced normal lung on computed tomography scan, preexisting chronic ILD, concurrent cardiac disease. ILD-related deaths in patients with ILD were 31.6% (gefitinib) versus 27.9% (chemotherapy); adjusted OR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.3-3.2). CONCLUSIONS: ILD was relatively common in these Japanese patients with NSCLC during therapy with gefitinib or chemotherapy, being higher in the older, smoking patient with preexisting ILD or poor performance status. The risk of developing ILD was higher with gefitinib than chemotherapy, mainly in the first 4 weeks.
Abstract: PURPOSE: The phase III Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) trial compared gefitinib with placebo in 1,692 patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We analyzed ISEL tumor biopsy samples to examine relationships between biomarkers and clinical outcome after gefitinib treatment in a placebo-controlled setting. METHODS: Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 370); EGFR (n = 379) and phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) protein expression (n = 382) by immunohistochemistry; and mutations in EGFR (n = 215), KRAS (n = 152), and BRAF (n = 118). RESULTS: High EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of a gefitinib-related effect on survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 for high copy number and HR, 1.16 for low copy number; comparison of high v low copy number HR, P = .045). EGFR protein expression was also related to clinical outcome (HR for positive, 0.77; HR for negative, 1.57; comparison of high v low protein expression HR, P = .049). Patients with EGFR mutations had higher response rates than patients without EGFR mutations (37.5% v 2.6%); there were insufficient data for survival analysis. No relationship was observed between p-Akt protein expression and survival outcome, and the limited amount of data collected for KRAS and BRAF mutations prevented any meaningful evaluation of clinical outcomes in relation to these mutations. CONCLUSION: EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of clinical benefit from gefitinib in ISEL. Additional studies are warranted to assess these biomarkers fully for the identification of patients most likely to benefit from gefitinib treatment.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: There is an increasing body of evidence to support the benefits of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and this has been reflected in a lowering of LDL-C goals recommended by international guidelines. Therefore, there is a growing need for effective lipid-modifying therapies to optimise the achievement of these more stringent LDL-C goals. OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of data pooled from five studies participating in the DISCOVERY (DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY) Programme was performed to compare the effect of rosuvastatin treatment with other statins in real-life clinical practice. RESULTS: These studies included 6743 patients with hypercholesterolaemia from different ethnicities, countries and cultural environments. The meta-analysis showed that significantly more patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg achieved the 2003 European LDL-C goals compared with those who received atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg also achieved the 2003 European total cholesterol goal compared with those on atorvastatin 10 mg (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis showed that rosuvastatin was more effective than comparator statins at lowering LDL-C levels and enabling patients to achieve lipid goals at recommended start doses. In addition, all statins studied were well tolerated and confirmed that rosuvastatin had a similar safety profile to other statins.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: The IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) phase III study compared the efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although a statistically significant difference in survival was not seen between gefitinib and placebo in the overall ISEL population, preplanned subset analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients who had never smoked and in patients of Asian origin. METHODS: In ISEL, 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy were randomized to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Preplanned subgroup analyses included an assessment of patients who were of Asian origin (n = 342). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five patients of Asian origin received gefitinib, and 107 received placebo. In these patients, treatment with gefitinib significantly improved survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 0.91; p = 0.010; median survival, 9.5 versus 5.5 months). Patients of Asian origin also experienced statistically significant improvements in time to treatment failure with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0084; 4.4 versus 2.2 months), and objective response rates were higher with gefitinib than with placebo (12 versus 2%). Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in patients of Asian origin, with rash and diarrhea being the most common adverse events. No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with gefitinib was associated with a significant improvement in survival in a subgroup of patients of Asian origin with previously treated refractory advanced NSCLC.
Abstract: AIM: The metabolic syndrome (MS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease, yet few data are available on the effects of statin treatment in improving lipid measures in patients with the syndrome. This analysis compares the effects of statin therapy on plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement and lipid levels in hypercholesterolaemic patients with or without the MS. METHODS: The Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin TherapY I (MERCURY I) trial compared rosuvastatin 10 mg with atorvastatin 10 mg and 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 40 mg over 8 weeks in patients with coronary or other atherosclerotic diseases or diabetes who had fasting levels of LDL-C of >or=2.99 mmol/l and triglycerides of <4.52 mmol/l. Modified National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) criteria for the MS were met by 1342 (43%) of 3140 patients. RESULTS: LDL-C goal achievement rates and reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were similar in patients with and without the MS within statin treatment groups; triglycerides were reduced more and HDL-C tended to be increased more in patients with the MS, as expected. Treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg was more effective in allowing patients with and without the MS to reach European and ATP III LDL-C goals, compared to atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 40 mg (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons); consistently produced greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol and non-HDL-C, compared to these treatments; and produced similar or greater reductions in triglycerides and increases in HDL-C, compared to the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy is effective in allowing LDL-C goal achievement and improving the lipid profile in hypercholesterolaemic high-risk patients with the MS. Rosuvastatin 10 mg presents significant advantages in goal achievement and lipid lowering over other statins at commonly used doses in patients both with and without the MS.
Abstract: The prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD) has been increasing in the past few decades in Japan, as it has in industrialised countries worldwide. CHD risk can be substantially reduced by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with dyslipidaemia. Statins are highly effective for this indication, but many patients treated with these drugs still do not meet their treatment goals, often because clinicians fail to titrate these patients to a higher, potentially more effective, dose. Thus, there is a need for more effective agents that can help patients reach their goals at starting doses. This paper reviews key clinical results for a new agent, rosuvastatin. The data show that rosuvastatin 5 mg is highly effective in lowering LDL-C to recommended levels for most patients (mean reductions ranging from 42 to 52%). In addition, rosuvastatin 5 mg effectively lowers triglycerides (-16%), total cholesterol (-30%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; -38%) and apolipoprotein (apo) B levels (-33%) and increases HDL-C (+8.2-13%) in a wide range of patients with hypercholesterolaemia, including the elderly, obese patients, postmenopausal women and patients with hypertension, CHD, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. The 5-mg dose of rosuvastatin dose also produces greater reductions in LDL-C and larger increases in HDL-C than recommended initial doses of atorvastatin, simvastatin or pravastatin (for LDL-C reductions, p <0.001 vs. atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 20 mg; for HDL-C elevations, p <0.01 vs. atorvastatin 10 mg). These results demonstrate that rosuvastatin 5 mg produces favourable effects on the lipid profile and helps more patients achieve LDL-C goals than comparator statins.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Lipid ratios are clinically useful markers of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. The effects of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on lipid ratios were investigated in the Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin TherapY (MERCURY) I trial. METHODS: This trial was conducted in 3140 hypercholesterolemic patients with CAD, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or a 20% 10-year risk for CAD. Patients were randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks; all patients except those receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg either were switched to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg or remained on initial treatment for 8 more weeks. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, reductions in total cholesterol (TC):high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol:HDL-C, non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and apolipoprotein (apo) B:apo A-I ratios with rosuvastatin 10 mg were significantly greater than those with atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg (P<0.0001 for all). At week 16, switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg from atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg and to rosuvastatin 20 mg from atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in all lipid ratios (P< or =0.0001 for all). Switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg from atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in TC:HDL-C (P<0.025) and apo B:apo A-I (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduces lipid ratios more than equivalent and higher doses of other statins; switching to equal or lower doses of rosuvastatin produces significantly improved reductions in lipid ratios.
Abstract: AIMS: To investigate the effect of monoamine oxidase A inhibition from a single oral dose of linezolid on the pressor response to intravenous (i.v.) tyramine, using positive and negative controls to validate the methodology. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study was conducted in 12 healthy male volunteers. Each volunteer received either one oral dose of moclobemide (300 mg), linezolid (600 mg), or placebo tablet followed by an i.v. tyramine pressor test until an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 30 mmHg above baseline occurred. Each study day was separated by a 7-day washout period. The dose of tyramine required to raise the blood pressure by 30 mmHg (TYR30) was calculated for each oral treatment by linear interpolation between log-transformed doses of i.v. tyramine. The influence of body mass index (BMI) on TYR30 was also investigated. RESULTS: The tyramine sensitivity factor (ratio of the geometric least square mean TYR30 for placebo and active oral treatment) was 1.8 [90% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 2.0, P < 0.0001] for linezolid and 2.1 (90% CI 1.8, 2.4, P < 0.0001) for the positive control moclobemide. BMI had a statistically significant effect on TYR30. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in the pressor response to i.v. tyramine between linezolid and placebo. Moclobemide (positive control) and linezolid have a similar pressor response to i.v. tyramine. The statistically significant effect of BMI on TYR30 underlines the advantage of within-individual comparisons of treatments in order to reduce variability and provide more accurate treatment estimates.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: In a multinational trial (4522IL/0081), we assessed the effects of switching to low doses of rosuvastatin from commonly used doses of atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement in high-risk patients. METHODS: Hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 3140) with coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, or type 2 diabetes were randomized to open-label rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks. Patients either remained on these treatments for another 8 weeks or switched treatments from atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg to rosuvastatin 10 mg or from atorvastatin 20 mg to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients reaching the Joint European Societies' LDL-C goal (<116 mg/dL) at week 16. For measures of cholesterol goal achievement, treatment arms were compared using logistic-regression analysis. RESULTS: Significant improvement in LDL-C goal achievement was found for patients who switched to rosuvastatin 10 mg, compared with patients who remained on atorvastatin 10 mg (86% vs 80%, P <.05), simvastatin 20 mg (86% vs 72%, P <.0001), and pravastatin 40 mg (88% vs 66%, P <.0001), and between patients switched to rosuvastatin 20 mg and those who remained on atorvastatin 20 mg (90% vs 84%, P <.01). Similar results were found for achievement of the European combined LDL-C and total cholesterol goals and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goals. All statins were well tolerated over 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that switching to a more efficacious statin is an effective strategy to improve lipid goal achievement in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy.
Abstract: AIMS: To explore inter- and intra-volunteer variability for the dose of intravenous tyramine eliciting a 20 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure from baseline (TYR20) and to evaluate potential tachyphylaxis. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received blinded placebo-controlled ascending and descending sequences of intravenous tyramine injections on two separate occasions. The TYR20 was derived by linear interpolation, using three interventions to deal with missing data. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance (ancova) demonstrated no significant difference in TYR20 between sequences, regardless of the missing data methodology applied. Inter-volunteer variability was 2.4-3.4 times larger than within-volunteer variability. No evidence of tachyphylaxis was seen using either the sign test or generalized additive models. CONCLUSIONS: Since inter-volunteer variability was greater than intra-volunteer variability, a crossover study design would be a more efficient study design, and the descending sequence of injections could be omitted since tachyphylaxis was not demonstrated.
Abstract: Background: Olaparib (AZD2281) is an oral PARP inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in patients (pts) with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (SOC) with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled Phase II study evaluated maintenance treatment with olaparib in pts with high-grade PSR SOC (clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00753545). Methods: Pts with PSR SOC who had received â¥2 previous platinum regimens and were in a maintained partial or complete response following their last platinum-containing regimen were randomized to oral olaparib 400 mg bid or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP) by CA-125 (GCIG criteria) or RECIST, overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: 265 pts were randomized (136 to olaparib and 129 to placebo). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. At data cut-off there were 153 (58%) progression events. PFS by RECIST was significantly longer in the olaparib than the placebo group (HR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.25â0.49; P<0.00001; median 8.4 vs 4.8 months). TTP by CA-125 or RECIST was also significantly longer in the olaparib than the placebo group (HR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.25â0.47; P<0.00001; median 8.3 vs 3.7 months). At data cut-off OS data were too immature for analysis. 68 (50%) and 21 (16%) remain on olaparib or placebo, respectively. AEs more commonly reported on olaparib than placebo (by >10%) were nausea (68% vs 35%), fatigue (49% vs 38%), vomiting (32% vs 14%) and anemia (17% vs 5%); the majority of AEs were CTCAE grade 1 or 2. The most frequently reported CTCAE grade â¥3 events were fatigue (9 pts) and anemia (7 pts) for olaparib, and abdominal pain and fatigue (4 pts each) for placebo. 3 (2.2%) pts on olaparib and 1 (0.8%) on placebo had AEs that led to treatment discontinuation. 31 pts (23%) in the olaparib group and 9 (7%) in the placebo group had both dose reductions and interruptions. Conclusions: In pts with PSR SOC, maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg bid provided a significant improvement in PFS. Olaparib was well tolerated, and toxicities were consistent with previous studies.
Abstract: Criteria have previously been published and debated for assessing the credibility of subgroup analysis results. However, these are aimed more at clinical research and practice. When submitting a medicine for a regulatory licence, agencies may or may not regard subgroup analyses as informative in different situations. It is often difficult for a sponsor statistician to know how much emphasis to place on subgroup analyses in a regulatory dossier, and this is a common topic for follow-up regulatory questions.
Current guidance will be reviewed in the context of real life examples from various therapy areas where subgroup analyses have been influential in licensing decisions. From these case studies, current trends will be identified regarding the role of statistical considerations alongside other factors. A new set of criteria will be proposed for when sponsors should be prepared for subgroup analyses to be part of discussions on the proposed labelling for new medicines.
