-
1.
High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease Treated with Statins: An Observation from the REAL-CAD Study.
Omote, K, Yokota, I, Nagai, T, Sakuma, I, Nakagawa, Y, Kamiya, K, Iwata, H, Miyauchi, K, Ozaki, Y, Hibi, K, et al
Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis. 2022;(1):50-68
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIM: The association between high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level after statin therapy and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unclear. Thus, in this study, we sought to determine how HDL-C level after statin therapy is associated with cardiovascular events in stable CAD patients. METHODS From the REAL-CAD study which had shown the favorable prognostic effect of high-dose pitavastatin in stable CAD patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <120 mg/dL, 9,221 patients with HDL-C data at baseline and 6 months, no occurrence of primary outcome at 6 months, and reported non-adherence for pitavastatin, were examined. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring emergent admission after 6 months of randomization. Absolute difference and ratio of HDL-C levels were defined as (those at 6 months-at baseline) and (absolute difference/baseline)×100, respectively. RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 4.0 (IQR 3.2-4.7) years, the primary outcome occurred in 417 (4.5%) patients. The adjusted risk of all HDL-C-related variables (baseline value, 6-month value, absolute, and relative changes) for the primary outcome was not significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.08, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98-1.12, and HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.24, respectively). Furthermore, adjusted HRs of all HDL-C-related variables remained non-significant for the primary outcome regardless of on-treatment LDL-C level at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS After statin therapy with modestly controlled LDL-C, HDL-C level has little prognostic value in patients with stable CAD.
-
2.
The leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast in the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Abdallah, MS, Eldeen, AH, Tantawy, SS, Mostafa, TM
European journal of pharmacology. 2021;:174295
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with fat accumulation in the liver which can progress into non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). There is no specific treatment strategy for NASH. In this context, this study aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of montelukast in the treatment of patients with NASH. In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, 52 overweight/obese patients with NASH were randomized into group 1 (n = 26) which received montelukast 10 mg tablets once daily and group 2 (n = 26) which received placebo tablets once daily for 12 weeks. The fibro-scan was used to assess liver stiffness as a primary outcome at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment. Furthermore, patients were assessed for biochemical analysis of liver aminotransferases, metabolic parameters, TNF-α, 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), liver fibrosis biomarkers including hyaluronic acid (HA) and transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGF-β1). Beck depression inventory questionnaire was used to report depressive symptoms. Data were statistically analyzed by paired and unpaired student's t-test, and Chi-square test. A total number of 44 patients completed the study. The two groups were statistically similar at baseline. After treatment and as compared to baseline data and placebo, montelukast showed a statistically significant improvement in liver stiffness, liver enzymes, metabolic parameters (except LDL-C), TNF-α, 8-OHdG, and liver fibrosis biomarkers (HA and TGF-β1). Furthermore, montelukast was well tolerated and didn't provoke depression. In this proof-of-concept study, treatment with montelukast may represent a promising therapeutic strategy for patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis secondary to its efficacy and safety. Clinicaltrial.gov ID: NCT04080947.
-
3.
Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers Predictive of Survival Benefit with Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Phase III REFLECT Study.
Finn, RS, Kudo, M, Cheng, AL, Wyrwicz, L, Ngan, RKC, Blanc, JF, Baron, AD, Vogel, A, Ikeda, M, Piscaglia, F, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2021;(17):4848-4858
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE In REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Serum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated. RESULTS Four hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253). CONCLUSIONS Higher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.
-
4.
Relation of renal function to mid-term prognosis of stable angina patients with high- or low-dose pitavastatin treatment: REAL-CAD substudy.
Abe, M, Ozaki, Y, Takahashi, H, Ishii, M, Masunaga, N, Ismail, TF, Iimuro, S, Fujita, R, Iwata, H, Sakuma, I, et al
American heart journal. 2021;:89-100
Abstract
BACKGROUND It has not yet been established whether higher-dose statins have beneficial effects on cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and renal dysfunction. METHODS The REAL-CAD study is a prospective, multicenter, open-label trial. As a substudy, we categorized patients by an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as follows: eGFR ≥60 (n = 7,768); eGFR ≥45 and <60 (n = 3,176); and eGFR <45 mL/Min/1.73 m2 (n = 1,164), who were randomized to pitavastatin 4mg or 1mg therapy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina, and was assessed by the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS The baseline characteristics and medications were largely well-balanced between two groups. The magnitude of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction at 6 months in high- and low-dose pitavastatin groups was comparable among all eGFR categories. During a median follow-up of 3.9 years, high- compared with low-dose pitavastatin significantly reduced cardiovascular events in patients with eGFR ≥60 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.91; P = .006), and reduced but not significant for patients with eGFR ≥45 and <60 (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.63-1.14; P = .27) or eGFR <45 mL/Min/1.73 m2 (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.33; P = .61). An interaction test of treatment by eGFR category was not significant (P value for interaction = .30). CONCLUSION Higher-dose pitavastatin therapy reduced LDL levels and cardiovascular events in stable CAD patients irrespective of eGFR level, although the effect on events appeared to be numerically lower in patients with lower eGFR.
-
5.
Forty-eight weeks of statin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with lower extremity atherosclerotic disease: Comparison of the effects of pitavastatin and atorvastatin on lower femoral total plaque areas.
Zhou, X, Wu, L, Chen, Y, Xiao, H, Huang, X, Li, Y, Xiao, H, Cao, X
Journal of diabetes investigation. 2021;(7):1278-1286
Abstract
AIMS/INTRODUCTION Type 2 diabetes mellitus is correlated with systemic atherosclerosis. Statin therapies have been proved to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, protecting type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from cardiovascular events. Recently, more interest has been focused on the regression of lower extremity atherosclerotic disease (LEAD) for the potential prevention of amputation. However, the effects of pitavastatin and atorvastatin on LEAD in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients have not been directly compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study compared the effects of pitavastatin and atorvastatin on femoral total plaque areas (FTPA), and lipids and glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with elevated LDL-C level and LEAD. Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with LDL-C level >2.6 mmol/L and LEAD were randomly assigned to receive either pitavastatin 2 mg/day or atorvastatin 10 mg/day for 48 weeks. FTPA were measured at baseline and the end of the study. Levels of glucose and lipids profile were measured periodically. The efficacy was evaluated in 63 patients. RESULTS The percentage change in FTPA measurements was similar between the pitavastatin group and atorvastatin group (-17.79 ± 21.27% vs -14.34 ± 16.33%), as were the changes in LDL-C (-44.0 ± 18.0% vs -40.3 ± 18.2%) and triglyceride (17.6 ± 20.0% vs 16.2 ± 17.0%). However, the level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly higher in the pitavastatin group compared with the atorvastatin group after 48 weeks of treatment (12.9 ± 10.3% vs 7.2 ± 11.7%, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between groups for the measurements of glucose metabolism. CONCLUSION In type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with elevated LDL-C level and LEAD, 48 weeks of treatment with either pitavastatin or atorvastatin was associated with significant regression of FTPA. Pitavastatin treatment resulted in a significantly higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level compared with atorvastatin treatment.
-
6.
The Montelukast Therapy in Asthmatic Children with and without Food Allergy: Does It Make Any Difference?
Sahiner, UM, Arik Yilmaz, E, Fontanella, S, Haider, S, Soyer, O, Custovic, A, Kalayci, O, Sackesen, C
International archives of allergy and immunology. 2021;(12):1212-1221
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Children with food allergy are at increased risk for asthma and asthma morbidity. Since leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of both asthma and probably in food allergies, we hypothesized that asthmatic children with concomitant food allergy may have a favorable response to antileukotriene treatment. METHODS Asthmatic children aged 6-18 years with and without food allergy were treated with montelukast and placebo in a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over parallel-group study. The primary outcome of the study was improvement in FEV1%. Asthma control tests, spirometry and methacholine challenges were performed as well as Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) levels. PGD2, CystLT, and lipoxin levels were measured in exhaled breath condensate (EBC). RESULTS A total of 113 children were enrolled and 87 completed the study in accordance with the protocol. At baseline, children with food allergy and asthma (FAA) had higher levels of PGD2 and CysLT levels in the EBC than children with asthma alone (AA) (p < 0.001 for each). In the montelukast arm, although FEV1% was significantly higher in the FAA group compared to AA (p = 0.005), this effect was linked to the baseline difference of FEV1% between both arms. Montelukast treatment failed to improve FEV1% in both groups compared to the placebo. No effect of montelukast was observed in the remaining study parameters. CONCLUSION Although children with FAA do not show a more favorable response to montelukast treatment compared to AA, a significant difference between baseline PGD2 and CystLT levels between FAA and AA groups may point to a different endotype of childhood asthma.
-
7.
Induction and Long-term Follow-up With ABX464 for Moderate-to-severe Ulcerative Colitis: Results of Phase IIa Trial.
Vermeire, S, Hébuterne, X, Tilg, H, De Hertogh, G, Gineste, P, Steens, JM, ,
Gastroenterology. 2021;(7):2595-2598.e3
-
8.
Arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine versus arterolane-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine in the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Kenyan children: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.
Hamaluba, M, van der Pluijm, RW, Weya, J, Njuguna, P, Ngama, M, Kalume, P, Mwambingu, G, Ngetsa, C, Wambua, J, Boga, M, et al
The Lancet. Infectious diseases. 2021;(10):1395-1406
Abstract
BACKGROUND Triple antimalarial combination therapies combine potent and rapidly cleared artemisinins or related synthetic ozonides, such as arterolane, with two, more slowly eliminated partner drugs to reduce the risk of resistance. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine versus arterolane-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Kenyan children. METHODS In this single-centre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial done in Kilifi County Hospital, Kilifi, coastal Kenya, children with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria were recruited. Eligible patients were aged 2-12 years and had an asexual parasitaemia of 5000-250 000 parasites per μL. The exclusion criteria included the presence of an acute illness other than malaria, the inability to tolerate oral medications, treatment with an artemisinin derivative in the previous 7 days, a known hypersensitivity or contraindication to any of the study drugs, and a QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc interval) longer than 450 ms. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), by use of blocks of six, nine, and 12, and opaque, sealed, and sequentially numbered envelopes, to receive either arterolane-piperaquine, arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine, or artemether-lumefantrine. Laboratory staff, but not the patients, the patients' parents or caregivers, clinical or medical officers, nurses, or trial statistician, were masked to the intervention groups. For 3 days, oral artemether-lumefantrine was administered twice daily (target dose 5-24 mg/kg of bodyweight of artemether and 29-144 mg/kg of bodyweight of lumefantrine), and oral arterolane-piperaquine (arterolane dose 4 mg/kg of bodyweight; piperaquine dose 20 mg/kg of bodyweight) and oral arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine (mefloquine dose 8 mg/kg of bodyweight) were administered once daily. All patients received 0·25 mg/kg of bodyweight of oral primaquine at hour 24. All patients were admitted to Kilifi County Hospital for at least 3 consecutive days and followed up at day 7 and, thereafter, weekly for up to 42 days. The primary endpoint was 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy, defined as the absence of treatment failure in the first 42 days post-treatment, of arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine versus artemether-lumefantrine, and, along with safety, was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. The 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy of arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine versus arterolane-piperaquine was an important secondary endpoint and was also analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference between treatments was -7%. The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03452475, and is completed. FINDINGS Between March 7, 2018, and May 2, 2019, 533 children with P falciparum were screened, of whom 217 were randomly assigned to receive either arterolane-piperaquine (n=73), arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine (n=72), or artemether-lumefantrine (n=72) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. The 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy after treatment with arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine (100%, 95% CI 95-100; 72/72) was non-inferior to that after treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (96%, 95% CI 88-99; 69/72; risk difference 4%, 95% CI 0-9; p=0·25). The 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy of arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine was non-inferior to that of arterolane-piperaquine (100%, 95% CI 95-100; 73/73; risk difference 0%). Vomiting rates in the first hour post-drug administration were significantly higher in patients treated with arterolane-piperaquine (5%, 95% CI 2-9; ten of 203 drug administrations; p=0·0013) or arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine (5%, 3-9; 11 of 209 drug administrations; p=0·0006) than in patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine (1%, 0-2; three of 415 drug administrations). Upper respiratory tract complaints (n=26 for artemether-lumefantrine; n=19 for arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine; n=23 for arterolane-piperaquine), headache (n=13; n=4; n=5), and abdominal pain (n=7; n=5; n=5) were the most frequently reported adverse events. There were no deaths. INTERPRETATION This study shows that arterolane-piperaquine-mefloquine is an efficacious and safe treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria in children and could potentially be used to prevent or delay the emergence of antimalarial resistance. FUNDING UK Department for International Development, The Wellcome Trust, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
-
9.
A Randomized, Phase III Study of Lenvatinib in Chinese Patients with Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.
Zheng, X, Xu, Z, Ji, Q, Ge, M, Shi, F, Qin, J, Wang, F, Chen, G, Zhang, Y, Huang, R, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2021;(20):5502-5509
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Lenvatinib has shown efficacy in treating radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in the multinational phase III SELECT study; however, it has not been tested in Chinese patients with RR-DTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chinese patients with confirmed RR-DTC (n = 151) were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive lenvatinib 24 mg/day or placebo in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and key secondary endpoints included objective response rate and safety. Analyses for progression-free survival and objective response rate were conducted using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and confirmed by independent imaging review. All adverse events were assessed and monitored. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib treatment [n = 103; median 23.9 months; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12.9-not estimable] versus placebo (n = 48; median 3.7 months; 95% CI, 1.9-5.6; hazard ratio = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10-0.26; P < 0.0001). The objective response rate was 69.9% (95% CI, 61.0-78.8) in the lenvatinib arm and 0% (95% CI, 0-0) in the placebo arm. At data cutoff, 60.2% of patients receiving lenvatinib remained on treatment; treatment-emergent adverse events led to lenvatinib discontinuation in 8.7% of patients. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events of grade ≥3 occurred in 87.4% of patients in the lenvatinib arm, the most common being hypertension (62.1%) and proteinuria (23.3%). CONCLUSIONS Lenvatinib at a starting dose of 24 mg/day significantly improved progression-free survival and objective response rate in Chinese patients with RR-DTC versus placebo. There were no new or unexpected toxicities. Results are consistent with those from SELECT involving patients with RR-DTC.
-
10.
Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.
Vogel, A, Qin, S, Kudo, M, Su, Y, Hudgens, S, Yamashita, T, Yoon, JH, Fartoux, L, Simon, K, López, C, et al
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2021;(8):649-658
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL. METHODS REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266. FINDINGS Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months. INTERPRETATION HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.