Arlene Reisman

First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND The efficacy of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib as compared with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. METHODS We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 343 patients with advanced ALK-positive nonsquamous NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily or to receive intravenous chemotherapy (pemetrexed, 500 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus either cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter, or carboplatin, target area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Crossover to crizotinib treatment after disease progression was permitted for patients receiving chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent radiologic review. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib than with chemotherapy (median, 10.9 months vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.60; P<0.001). Objective response rates were 74% and 45%, respectively (P<0.001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (hazard ratio for death with crizotinib, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26; P=0.36); the probability of 1-year survival was 84% with crizotinib and 79% with chemotherapy. The most common adverse events with crizotinib were vision disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and edema, and the most common events with chemotherapy were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. As compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib was associated with greater reduction in lung cancer symptoms and greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Crizotinib was superior to standard first-line pemetrexed-plus-platinum chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Pfizer; PROFILE 1014 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154140.).

Linezolid in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data suggested that linezolid may be more effective than vancomycin for treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia. This study prospectively assessed efficacy and safety of linezolid, compared with a dose-optimized vancomycin regimen, for treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS This was a prospective, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial involving hospitalized adult patients with hospital-acquired or healthcare-associated MRSA pneumonia. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 hours) for 7-14 days. Vancomycin dose was adjusted on the basis of trough levels. The primary end point was clinical outcome at end of study (EOS) in evaluable per-protocol (PP) patients. Prespecified secondary end points included response in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population at end of treatment (EOT) and EOS and microbiologic response in the PP and mITT populations at EOT and EOS. Survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS Of 1184 patients treated, 448 (linezolid, n = 224; vancomycin, n = 224) were included in the mITT and 348 (linezolid, n = 172; vancomycin, n = 176) in the PP population. In the PP population, 95 (57.6%) of 165 linezolid-treated patients and 81 (46.6%) of 174 vancomycin-treated patients achieved clinical success at EOS (95% confidence interval for difference, 0.5%-21.6%; P = .042). All-cause 60-day mortality was similar (linezolid, 15.7%; vancomycin, 17.0%), as was incidence of adverse events. Nephrotoxicity occurred more frequently with vancomycin (18.2%; linezolid, 8.4%). CONCLUSIONS For the treatment of MRSA nosocomial pneumonia, clinical response at EOS in the PP population was significantly higher with linezolid than with vancomycin, although 60-day mortality was similar.

Anidulafungin compared with fluconazole for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans: a multivariate analysis of factors associated with improved outcome

BackgroundCandida albicans is the most common cause of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Systemic infections due to C. albicans exhibit good susceptibility to fluconazole and echinocandins. However, the echinocandin anidulafungin was recently demonstrated to be more effective than fluconazole for systemic Candida infections in a randomized, double-blind trial among 245 patients. In that trial, most infections were caused by C. albicans, and all respective isolates were susceptible to randomized study drug. We sought to better understand the factors associated with the enhanced efficacy of anidulafungin and hypothesized that intrinsic properties of the antifungal agents contributed to the treatment differences.MethodsGlobal responses at end of intravenous study treatment in patients with C. albicans infection were compared post-hoc. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to predict response and to adjust for differences in independent baseline characteristics. Analyses focused on time to negative blood cultures, persistent infection at end of intravenous study treatment, and 6-week survival.ResultsIn total, 135 patients with C. albicans infections were identified. Among these, baseline APACHE II scores were similar between treatment arms. In these patients, global response was significantly better for anidulafungin than fluconazole (81.1% vs 62.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference, 3.7-33.9). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the odds ratio for global response was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.06-5.25). Study treatment and APACHE II score were significant predictors of outcome. The most predictive logistic regression model found that the odds ratio for study treatment was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.14-5.91) in favor of anidulafungin, and the odds ratio for APACHE II score was 0.935 (95% CI, 0.885-0.987), with poorer responses associated with higher baseline APACHE II scores. Anidulafungin was associated with significantly faster clearance of blood cultures (log-rank p < 0.05) and significantly fewer persistent infections (2.7% vs 13.1%; p < 0.05). Survival through 6 weeks did not differ between treatment groups.ConclusionsIn patients with C. albicans infection, anidulafungin was more effective than fluconazole, with more rapid clearance of positive blood cultures. This suggests that the fungicidal activity of echinocandins may have important clinical implications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00058682

The role of diabetes mellitus in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: results from three randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes of treating complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with linezolid versus vancomycin in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. METHODS We pooled data from three prospective clinical trials in which 1056 patients were randomized to receive either linezolid (intravenous (IV) or oral) or vancomycin (IV) every 12h, for 7-28 days. RESULTS Diabetic (n=349) and non-diabetic patients (n=707) had comparable demographics and co-morbidities. Clinical success rates were lower in diabetic than in non-diabetic patients (72.3% and 85.8%, respectively). Overall, non-diabetic patients had a shorter adjusted mean length of stay (LOS) compared with diabetic patients (8.2 and 10.7 days, respectively; p<0.0001). Among diabetic patients, rates were comparable with linezolid and vancomycin treatment for clinical success (74% and 71%, respectively) and microbiological success (60% and 54%, respectively). Among non-diabetic patients, clinical and microbiological success rates were higher in linezolid- than in vancomycin-treated patients (90% and 81%, respectively, and 78% and 65%, respectively). Rates of drug-related adverse events were comparable in diabetic and non-diabetic patients and with linezolid and vancomycin treatment. Adjusted mean LOS was shorter with linezolid than with vancomycin treatment in diabetic patients (9.5 and 11.7 days, respectively; p=0.03) and non-diabetic patients (7.6 and 8.9 days, respectively; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Clinical success rates were lower in diabetic than non-diabetic patients with cSSSI caused by MRSA. Comparing linezolid and vancomycin, clinical and microbiological success rates were comparable in diabetic patients, but were better for linezolid than for vancomycin in non-diabetic patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life in PROFILE 1007: A Randomized Trial of Crizotinib Compared with Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Patients with ALK-Positive Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: The main objective of the current post hoc analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between crizotinib (N = 172) and chemotherapy subgroups (pemetrexed [N = 99] and docetaxel [N = 72]) in previously treated patients with advanced ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer, in PROFILE 1007 study (Pfizer; NCT0093283). Methods: Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment. General health status was measured using the EuroQol-5D visual analog scale and health utility index scores were assessed using the EuroQol-5D descriptive system. Functioning, lung cancer symptoms, and global quality of life (QOL) were assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-LC13 lung cancer module. Repeated measures mixed-effects analyses compared overall scores and change from baseline scores, controlling for baseline scores. Results: The overall mean EQ-5D health utility index scores (95% CI) on treatment were significantly greater (p < 0.05) for crizotinib (0.82 [0.79−0.85]) than for chemotherapy (0.73 [0.70−0.77]; 0.74 [0.70−0.79] for pemetrexed and 0.66 [0.58−0.74] for docetaxel). A significantly greater improvement from baseline was observed with crizotinib versus pemetrexed and versus docetaxel treatment groups for general health status, physical functioning, global QOL, dyspnea, fatigue, and pain. Improvement rates for fatigue, cough, pain, dyspnea, and global QOL were significantly greater on crizotinib compared with pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Worsening rates for diarrhea and constipation were higher with crizotinib. Conclusion: The benefits of crizotinib in improving symptoms and QOL are demonstrated regardless of whether the comparator is pemetrexed or docetaxel.

Health-related quality of life in chronic myeloid leukemia

The increased survival associated with treatments for CML emphasize the importance of understanding the HRQOL of newly diagnosed and previously treated CML patients with all phases of disease. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia results from a phase 3 and a phase 2 trial are reported for over 900 1st, 2nd, 3rd line CP, AP, and BP patients. Physical Well-being and Leukemia symptoms were worse for patients in later lines of therapy. Individuals with AP and BP CML had poorer HRQOL than individuals with CP CML. HRQOL of CML patients was predominantly consistent with the longitudinal clinical trajectory of the disease.

Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND Linezolid is 100% bioavailable in oral and intravenous formulations. In a recent prospective, randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial in adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), linezolid achieved clinical and microbiologic success comparable to appropriately dosed intravenous vancomycin. Although patients were randomly assigned to receive linezolid or vancomycin, the protocol allowed patients to start therapy using oral or intravenous linezolid on the basis of investigator discretion and patient ability to tolerate oral medication. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of linezolid when administered orally in adults with cSSTI caused by MRSA. In this retrospective analysis, we examined data collected from the aforementioned trial to compare outcomes in patients who received either oral linezolid or intravenous vancomycin therapy. METHODS This study analyzed outcomes in patients who received treatment for 7 to 14 days with either oral linezolid (600 mg q12h; n = 95) or intravenous vancomycin (15 mg/kg q12h, adjusted for creatinine clearance and trough concentration; n = 210). By design, these groups were not randomized. Propensity score matching on baseline variables was used to balance these groups by identifying a comparable group of patients who received vancomycin therapy and comparing them with patients who received oral linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates at the end of treatment and the end of the study (EOS) were then directly compared between the groups using matched-pair logistic regression. The tolerability of the 2 treatments (within this matched group) was also described. RESULTS Ninety-two patients with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in each treatment group. At EOS, the odds ratio for clinical success of oral linezolid therapy vs intravenous vancomycin therapy was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.3-12.0; P = 0.01), and the odds ratio for microbiologic success at EOS was 2.7 (95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P = 0.01). Overall rates of adverse events in each group were consistent with reported safety profiles for each drug. CONCLUSION A favorable clinical cure rate was achieved with oral linezolid therapy when compared with intravenous vancomycin therapy in propensity score-matched patients with cSSTI proved to be caused by MRSA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087490.

Comparison of serotonin toxicity with concomitant use of either linezolid or comparators and serotonergic agents: an analysis of Phase III and IV randomized clinical trial data

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The present studys objective was to evaluate serotonin toxicity with concomitant use of linezolid or comparators and serotonergic agents from 20 Phase III and IV comparator-controlled clinical studies on treatment of various Gram-positive infections. All reported adverse events were evaluated for serotonin toxicity using exact and surrogate terms consistent with Sternbach Criteria and Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS Baseline demographics and co-morbidities were similar between linezolid and comparator groups. No patients in either group were reported to have adverse events identified as serotonin toxicity. Among the patients receiving at least one serotonergic agent, 9 of the 2208 (0.41%) linezolid patients and 3 of the 2057 (0.15%) comparator patients met the Sternbach Criteria [risk ratio (RR) 2.79; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.76-10.31]; 3 (0.14%) of the linezolid patients and 1 (0.05%) of the comparator patients met the Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria (RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.29-26.85). No patients met both criteria. Most patients meeting criteria for serotonin toxicity had past or present co-morbidities that may have contributed to or overlapped with reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS While the potential exists for serotonin toxicity to occur with concomitant use of linezolid and serotonergic agents, the risk appears to be low. Based on the large database of Phase III and IV studies included in our analysis, we did not find enough evidence to conclude that linezolid-induced serotonin toxicity was different from that of comparators.

The safety of azithromycin in the treatment of adults with community-acquired respiratory tract infections.

The comparative safety of azithromycin was assessed in adult patients (> or =12 years) with community-acquired respiratory tract infections. Of 3229 patients evaluated, 1616 received azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 3 days and 1613 received standard regimens of amoxycillin, amoxycillin/clavulanic acid, cefaclor, clarithromycin, or roxithromycin. A similar incidence of treatment-related adverse events occurred with azithromycin (10.3%) and comparators (11.5%). Significantly fewer patients were withdrawn from azithromycin than comparator treatment (0.4 versus 2.1%; P=0.0001). Most adverse events were mild/moderate in intensity and affected the gastrointestinal system. Azithromycin was as well tolerated as other antibiotics commonly used for bacterial infections in adults.

Tolerability of 3-day, once-daily azithromycin suspension versus standard treatments for community-acquired paediatric infectious diseases

Tolerability of azithromycin oral suspension, 10 mg/kg once daily for 3 days, was assessed in paediatric patients (< or = 18 years) with respiratory or skin and soft-tissue infections. Of 2425 patients evaluated, 1213 received azithromycin and 1212 received standard regimens of amoxycillin/clavulanic acid, cefaclor, cefixime, ceftriaxone, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or penicillin V. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was significantly lower in patients receiving azithromycin than comparators (7.9 vs. 11.5%, P=0.003), while discontinuation rates were similar (1.0 and 1.1%, respectively). Significantly fewer gastrointestinal events were recorded for azithromycin than comparators (6.5 vs. 9.9%, P=0.002), and their duration was significantly shorter (mean 2.3 vs. 5.0 days, P=0.0001). Azithromycin paediatric oral suspension is well tolerated and associated with significantly fewer adverse events than comparators.