Bogdana Balas

Alectinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study

PURPOSE Crizotinib confers improved progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but progression invariably occurs. We investigated the efficacy and safety of alectinib, a potent and selective ALK inhibitor with excellent CNS penetration, in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Alectinib 600 mg was administered orally twice daily. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by central independent review committee (IRC). RESULTS Of the 138 patients treated, 84 patients (61%) had CNS metastases at baseline, and 122 were response evaluable (RE) by IRC. ORR by IRC was 50% (95% CI, 41% to 59%), and the median duration of response (DOR) was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached). In 96 patients (79%) previously treated with chemotherapy, the ORR was 45% (95% CI, 35% to 55%). Median IRC-assessed progression-free survival for all 138 patients was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.3 months). CNS disease control rate was 83% (95% CI, 74% to 91%), and the median CNS DOR was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 11.2 months). CNS ORR in 35 patients with baseline measurable CNS lesions was 57% (95% CI, 39% to 74%). Of the 23 patients with baseline CNS metastases (measurable or nonmeasurable) and no prior radiation, 10 (43%) had a complete CNS response. At 12 months, the cumulative CNS progression rate (24.8%) was lower than the cumulative non-CNS progression rate (33.2%) for all patients. Common adverse events were constipation (33%), fatigue (26%), and peripheral edema (25%); most were grade 1 to 2. CONCLUSION Alectinib is highly active and well tolerated in patients with advanced, crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

Alectinib versus Crizotinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Background Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK‐positive non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK‐positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. Methods In a randomized, open‐label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK‐positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator‐assessed progression‐free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee–assessed progression‐free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. Results During a median follow‐up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator‐assessed progression‐free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12‐month event‐free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P<0.001); the median progression‐free survival with alectinib was not reached. The results for independent review committee–assessed progression‐free survival were consistent with those for the primary end point. A total of 18 patients (12%) in the alectinib group had an event of CNS progression, as compared with 68 patients (45%) in the crizotinib group (cause‐specific hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.28; P<0.001). A response occurred in 126 patients in the alectinib group (response rate, 82.9%; 95% CI, 76.0 to 88.5) and in 114 patients in the crizotinib group (response rate, 75.5%; 95% CI, 67.8 to 82.1) (P=0.09). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with alectinib (41% vs. 50% with crizotinib). Conclusions As compared with crizotinib, alectinib showed superior efficacy and lower toxicity in primary treatment of ALK‐positive NSCLC. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche; ALEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075840.)

Examining the safety of PPAR agonists – current trends and future prospects

Introduction: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-α and -γ agonists, fibrates and glitazones, are effective treatments for dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively, but exhibit class-related, as well as compound-specific safety characteristics. Areas covered: This article reviews the profiles of PPAR-α, PPAR-γ, and dual PPAR-α/γ agonists with regard to class-related and compound-specific efficacy and adverse effects. We explore how learnings from first-generation drugs are being applied to develop safer PPAR-targeted therapies. Expert opinion: The finding that rosiglitazone may increase risk for cardiovascular events has led to regulatory guidelines requiring demonstration of cardiovascular safety in appropriate outcome trials for new type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs. The emerging data on the possibly increased risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone may prompt the need for post-approval safety studies for new drugs. Since PPAR-α and -γ affect key cardiometabolic risk factors (diabetic dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and inflammation) in a complementary fashion, combining their benefits has emerged as a particularly attractive option. New PPAR-targeted therapies that balance the relative potency and/or activity toward PPAR-α and -γ have shown promise in retaining efficacy while reducing potential side effects.

Pooled Systemic Efficacy and Safety Data from the Pivotal Phase II Studies (NP28673 and NP28761) of Alectinib in ALK-positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Alectinib demonstrated clinical efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in two phase II studies (NP28761 and NP28673). Here we report the pooled efficacy and safety data after 15 and 18 months more follow‐up than in the respective primary analyses. Methods: Enrolled patients had ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK)‐positive NSCLC and had progressed while taking, or could not tolerate, crizotinib. Patients received oral alectinib, 600 mg twice daily. The primary end point in both studies was objective response rate assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, progression‐free survival, overall survival, and safety. Results: The pooled data set included 225 patients (n = 138 in NP28673 and n = 87 in NP28761). The response‐evaluable population included 189 patients (84% [n = 122 in NP28673 and n = 67 in NP28761]). In the response‐evaluable population, objective response rate as assessed by the IRC was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.0–58.6 [all PRs]), the disease control rate was 78.8% (95% CI: 72.3–84.4), and the median duration of response was 14.9 months (95% CI: 11.1–20.4) after 58% of events. Median progression‐free survival as assessed by the IRC was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.0–11.3) and median overall survival was 26.0 months (95% CI: 21.4–not estimable). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40% of patients, 6% of patients had treatment withdrawn on account of AEs, and 33% had AEs leading to dose interruptions/modification. Conclusions: This pooled data analysis confirmed the robust systemic efficacy of alectinib in ALK‐positive NSCLC with a durable response rate. Alectinib also had an acceptable safety profile with a longer duration of follow‐up.

Alectinib versus chemotherapy in crizotinib-pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase III ALUR study

Abstract Background This is the first trial to directly compare efficacy and safety of alectinib versus standard chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who have progressed on, or were intolerant to, crizotinib. Patients and methods ALUR (MO29750; NCT02604342) was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of alectinib versus chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC patients previously treated with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and crizotinib. Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive alectinib 600 mg twice daily or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2, both every 3 weeks) until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results Altogether, 107 patients were randomized (alectinib, n = 72; chemotherapy, n = 35) in 13 countries across Europe and Asia. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.9–12.2] with alectinib and 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.15 (95% CI: 0.08–0.29); P < 0.001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with alectinib [HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17–0.59); median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI: 6.3–10.8) with alectinib and 1.6 months (95% CI: 1.3–4.1) with chemotherapy]. In patients with measurable baseline central nervous system (CNS) disease (alectinib, n = 24; chemotherapy, n = 16), CNS objective response rate was significantly higher with alectinib (54.2%) versus chemotherapy (0%; P < 0.001). Grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy (41.2%) than alectinib (27.1%). Incidence of AEs leading to study-drug discontinuation was lower with alectinib (5.7%) than chemotherapy (8.8%), despite alectinib treatment duration being longer (20.1 weeks versus 6.0 weeks). Conclusion Alectinib significantly improved systemic and CNS efficacy versus chemotherapy for crizotinib-pretreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients, with a favorable safety profile. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604342; Roche study MO29750

Effect of Food and Esomeprazole on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib, a Highly Selective ALK Inhibitor, in Healthy Subjects

Alectinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, is approved for treatment of patients with ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer who have progressed, on or are intolerant to, crizotinib. This study assessed the effect of a high‐fat meal and the proton pump inhibitor, esomeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib. This was an open‐label, 2‐group study in healthy subjects. In group 1 (n = 18), subjects were randomly assigned to a 2‐treatment (A, fasted conditions; B, following a high‐fat meal), 2‐sequence (AB or BA) crossover assessment, separated by a 10‐day washout. In group 2 (n = 24), subjects were enrolled in a 2‐period, fixed‐sequence crossover assessment to evaluate the effect of esomeprazole. PK parameters were evaluated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Administration of alectinib following a high‐fat meal substantially increased the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 331% (90%CI, 279%–393%) and 311% (90%CI, 273%–355%) for Cmax and AUC0–∞, respectively, versus fasted conditions. Coadministration of esomeprazole had no clinically relevant effect on the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Alectinib should be administered under fed conditions to maximize its bioavailability, whereas no restrictions are required with antisecretory agents.

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib

Alectinib is approved and recommended as the preferred first‐line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)‐positive non–small cell lung cancer. The effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib was assessed with physiologically based PK modeling prospectively and in a clinical study. An open‐label study (NCT02621047) investigated a single 300‐mg dose of alectinib in moderate (n = 8) and severe (n = 8) hepatic impairment (Child‐Pugh B/C), and healthy subjects (n = 12) matched for age, sex, and body weight. Physiologically based PK modeling was conducted prospectively to inform the clinical study design and support the use of a lower dose and extended PK sampling in the study. PK parameters were calculated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Unbound concentrations were assessed at 6 and 12 hours postdose. Administration of alectinib to subjects with hepatic impairment increased the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity of the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 136% (90% confidence interval [CI], 94.7‐196) and 176% (90%CI 98.4‐315), for moderate and severe hepatic impairment, respectively, relative to matched healthy subjects. Unbound concentrations for alectinib and M4 did not appear substantially different between hepatic‐impaired and healthy subjects. Moderate hepatic impairment had only a modest, not clinically significant effect on alectinib exposure, while the higher exposure observed in severe hepatic impairment supports a dose adjustment in this population.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study

Abstract Background The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX. Patients and methods Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8 weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression. Results In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n = 64; crizotinib, n = 58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n = 21; crizotinib, n = 22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n = 25; crizotinib, n = 21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25–0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33–0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P < 0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not. Conclusion Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840