1.
Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
Motzer, RJ, Porta, C, Vogelzang, NJ, Sternberg, CN, Szczylik, C, Zolnierek, J, Kollmannsberger, C, Rha, SY, Bjarnason, GA, Melichar, B, et al
The Lancet. Oncology. 2014;(3):286-96
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
2.
Add-on montelukast vs double-dose budesonide in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis: a pilot study.
Cai, C, He, MZ, Zhong, SQ, Tang, Y, Sun, BQ, Chen, QL, Zhong, NS
Respiratory medicine. 2012;(10):1369-75
Abstract
BACKGROUND Budesonide at 800 μg/d is generally suggested for treatment of nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB). In asthma, adjunctive therapy with montelukast has been shown to confer addictive anti-inflammatory effects to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). However, whether such effects could be extrapolated to NAEB is not known. OBJECTIVES To study the efficacy and tolerability of add-on therapy with montelukast as compared to double-dose ICS in suppressing airway eosinophilia and decreasing cough severity in NAEB. METHODS In a randomized controlled trial, 26 nonsmoking, steroid-naïve NAEB patients presenting with chronic cough were treated with 800 μg/d budesonide or 400 μg/d budesonide plus montelukast 10 mg/d for 4 weeks. Cough visual analogue scale (CVAS) and eosinophil differential ratio in induced sputum (Eos) were monitored at baseline, Week 1, 2 and 4. Adverse events during treatment were recorded. RESULTS The two groups were comparable in age, gender distribution, cough duration, FEV(1)% predicted, FEV(1)/FEV ratio, baseline CVAS and geometric mean of Eos. Both regimens significantly reduced Eos and CVAS throughout the treatment course, with abrogation of sputum eosinophilia at end of therapy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in reduction of Eos and CVAS at all time points. Both regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS This preliminary study demonstrated that add-on montelukast might be an effective and well tolerated alternative to the generally suggested dose of ICS in treating steroid-naive NAEB, with suppression of eosinophilic inflammation, reduction of cough severity and sparing of ICS doses. (NCT01121016).