Helen Bhattacharyya

Efficacy and safety of linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections proven to be caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND This open-label study compared oral or intravenous linezolid with intravenous vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS Patients with proven MRSA cSSTI were randomized to receive linezolid or vancomycin. Clinical and microbiologic outcomes, duration of antimicrobial therapy, length of hospital stay, and safety were assessed. RESULTS In the per-protocol population, the rate of clinical success was similar in linezolid- and vancomycin-treated patients (P = .249). The rate of success was significantly higher in linezolid-treated patients in the modified intent-to-treat population (P = .048). The microbiologic success rate was higher for linezolid at the end of treatment (P < .001) and was similar at the end of the study (P = .127). Patients receiving linezolid had a significantly shorter length of stay and duration of intravenous therapy than patients receiving vancomycin. Both agents were well tolerated. Adverse events were similar to each drugs established safety profile. CONCLUSIONS Linezolid is an effective alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of cSSTI caused by MRSA.

Early Microbiological Response to Linezolid vs Vancomycin in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus*

BACKGROUND Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical trial compared the early microbiological efficacy of linezolid (LZD) therapy with that of vancomycin (VAN) therapy in patients with MRSA VAP. METHODS A total of 149 patients with suspected MRSA VAP were randomized to receive either LZD, 600 mg, or VAN, 1 g every 12 h. Patients with baseline bronchoscopic BAL (BBAL) fluid quantitative culture findings that were positive for MRSA (>or= 10(4) cfu/mL) comprised the study population. The primary outcome was microbiological response (<or= 10(2) cfu/mL) in a second BBAL performed 72 to 96 h following the start of treatment. RESULTS Thirty LZD-treated patients and 20 VAN-treated patients had microbiologically confirmed MRSA at baseline; 23 and 19 patients, respectively, underwent repeat BBAL. While a greater number of LZD-treated patients than VAN-treated patients achieved a microbiological cure (56.5% vs 47.4%, respectively; p = 0.757; 95% confidence interval, -21.1 to 39.4), this difference was not statistically significant. Nonstatistically significant differences were also seen for LZD-treated patients vs VAN-treated patients in terms of clinical cure (66.7% vs 52.9%, respectively), survival rate (86.7% vs 70.0%, respectively), and the mean duration of ventilation (10.4 vs 14.3 d, respectively), hospitalization (18.8 vs 20.1 d, respectively), ICU stay (12.2 vs 16.2 d, respectively), and time spent alive and not receiving mechanical ventilation (15.5 vs 11.1 d, respectively). Three patients who had been extubated prior to undergoing repeat BBAL had been randomized to receive LZD therapy. CONCLUSION Early microbiological cure rates were not statistically significantly higher with LZD therapy than with VAN therapy despite trends in all secondary clinical outcomes favoring LZD therapy. These results suggest that any beneficial effect of LZD therapy may be due to factors other than increased bacterial clearance. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00572559.

Azithromycin Combination Therapy with Artesunate or Quinine for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in Adults: A Randomized, Phase 2 Clinical Trial in Thailand

BACKGROUND Because antimalarial drug resistance is spreading, there is an urgent need for new combination treatments for malaria, which kills >1 million people every year. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that is particularly attractive as an antimalarial because of its safety in children and the extensive experience with its use during pregnancy. METHODS We undertook a randomized, controlled, 28-day inpatient trial involving patients with acute, uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. We compared the safety and efficacy of 2 azithromycin-artesunate combinations and 2 azithromycin-quinine regimens in adults with malaria. Treatments were as follows: cohort 1 received 3 days of azithromycin (750 mg twice daily) plus artesunate (100 mg twice daily), cohort 2 received 3 days of azithromycin (1000 mg once daily) plus artesunate (200 mg once daily), cohort 3 received 3 days of azithromycin (750 mg twice daily) plus quinine (10 mg/kg twice daily), and cohort 4 received 3 days of azithromycin (500 mg 3 times daily) plus quinine (10 mg/kg 3 times daily). The enrollment target was 25 evaluable subjects per group. RESULTS The 28-day cure rates were similarly high in the artesunate and the standard-dose quinine cohorts: 92.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.0%-99.0%), 88.9% (95% CI, 70.8%-97.6%), and 92.0% (95% CI, 74.0%-99.0%), for cohorts 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Late R1 treatment failures were seen in each of the artesunate and the standard-dose quinine cohorts. The cure rate for cohort 3 was 73.3% (95% CI, 44.9%-92.2%). In this cohort, 3 early treatment failures led to the termination of enrollment after 16 subjects had been enrolled. With mean parasite and fever clearance times (+/-SD) of 34+/-13 h and 20+/-20 h, the artesunate combinations were found to have led to a significantly (P<.001) faster clinical and parasitological improvement than occurred in the quinine cohorts (74+/-32 h and 43+/-37 h, respectively). Treatment-related adverse events were significantly more common in the quinine cohorts (P<.001). No deaths or drug-related serious adverse events were observed. In vitro results suggest that the treatment failures--particularly in the low-dose quinine cohort--were associated with decreased susceptibility to quinine, as well as with mefloquine cross-resistance. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that azithromycin-artesunate, even when given only once daily for 3 days, and azithromycin-quinine, given 3 times daily, are safe and efficacious combination treatments for uncomplicated falciparum malaria, and they deserve additional study in special patient populations.

Patient-reported outcomes for axitinib vs sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase III (AXIS) trial

Background:Axitinib demonstrated greater progression-free survival vs sorafenib in a phase III study of previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Here, we report patient-reported kidney-specific symptoms and health status, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Cancer Symptom Index (FKSI) and the European Quality of Life self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D).Methods:In all, 723 patients received axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.)) or sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.). The FKSI-15, including the disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale, was administered on day 1 before dosing, every 4 weeks and at end of treatment (EOT)/withdrawal. Statistical methods included a mixed-effects repeated-measures model.Results:At baseline, patients in both arms had relatively high mean FSKI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores, comparable to the general US population. Subsequent on-treatment overall mean scores were similar between axitinib and sorafenib, and there was no substantial decline during treatment. Scores substantially worsened at EOT, mainly due to disease progression.Conclusion:Patient-reported outcomes were comparable for second-line axitinib and sorafenib and were maintained at relatively high levels while on treatment, but worsened at EOT. As duration of treatment was longer with axitinib than sorafenib, time to worsening of symptoms can be delayed longer with axitinib.

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.

Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on pain severity and pain interference with daily activities in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer as first-line treatment

Abstract Background Palbociclib is a recently approved drug for use in combination with letrozole as initial endocrine-based therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. This report assesses the impact of palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone on patient-reported outcomes of pain. Methods Palbociclib was evaluated in an open-label, randomized, phase II study (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18) among postmenopausal women with advanced ER+/HER2- breast cancer who had not received prior systemic treatment for their advanced disease. Patients received continuous oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily alone or the same letrozole dose and schedule plus oral palbociclib 125 mg, given once daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off over repeated 28-day cycles. The primary study endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population, and these results have recently been published (Finn et al., Lancet Oncol 2015;16:25-35). One of the key secondary endpoints was the evaluation of pain, as measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) patient-reported outcome tool. The BPI was administered at baseline and on day 1 of every cycle thereafter until disease progression and/or treatment discontinuation. Clinical trial registration This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00721409). Results There were no statistically significant differences in Pain Severity or Pain Interference scores of the BPI between the two treatment groups for the overall population or among those with any bone disease at baseline. A limitation of the study is that results were not adjusted for the concomitant use of opioids or other medications used to control pain. Conclusions The addition of palbociclib to letrozole was associated with increased efficacy without negatively impacting pain severity or pain interference with daily activities.

Impact of palbociclib plus letrozole on patient-reported health-related quality of life: results from the PALOMA-2 trial

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes are integral in benefit–risk assessments of new treatment regimens. The PALOMA-2 study provides the largest body of evidence for patient-reported health-related quality of life (QOL) for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving first-line endocrine-based therapy (palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone). Patients and methods Treatment-naïve postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) MBC were randomized 2 : 1 to palbociclib plus letrozole (n = 444) or placebo plus letrozole (n = 222). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, day 1 of cycles 2 and 3, and day 1 of every other cycle from cycle 5 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Breast and EuroQOL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Results As of 26 February 2016, the median duration of follow-up was 23 months. Baseline scores were comparable between the two treatment arms. No significant between-arm differences were observed in change from baseline in FACT-Breast Total, FACT-General Total, or EQ-5D scores. Significantly greater improvement in pain scores was observed in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm (−0.256 versus −0.098; P = 0.0183). In both arms, deterioration of FACT-Breast Total score was significantly delayed in patients without progression versus those with progression and patients with partial or complete response versus those without. No significant difference was observed in FACT-Breast and EQ-5D index scores in patients with and without neutropenia. Conclusions Overall, women with MBC receiving first-line endocrine therapy have a good QOL. The addition of palbociclib to letrozole maintains health-related QOL and improves pain scores in treatment-naïve postmenopausal patients with ER+/HER2− MBC compared with letrozole alone. Significantly greater delay in deterioration of health-related QOL was observed in patients without progression versus those who progressed and in patients with an objective response versus non-responders. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01740427)

Fatigue in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib on an intermittent versus continuous dosing schedule in a randomized phase II trial

A phase II trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found no benefit in efficacy or safety between patients receiving oral sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2‐week off‐treatment (Schedule 4/2) and those receiving 37.5 mg continuous daily sunitinib. We hypothesized that fatigue would have a more variable “on‐off” effect with the 4/2 schedule. A total of 292 patients completed two fatigue‐related items on Days 1 and 29 of each treatment cycle. Mean absolute slopes were compared across treatments. A planned analysis of item “I feel fatigued” demonstrated that the mean absolute slope was greater in Schedule 4/2 compared to continuous dosing (0.042 vs. 0.032, P = 0.003), and analysis based on the change from Day 1 to Day 29 (0.52 vs. 0.21, P = 0.002) and, separately, Day 29 to the next Day 1 (−0.38 vs. −0.05, P < 0.001) showed the changes to be significantly larger in Schedule 4/2 than continuous dosing. “I have a lack of energy” showed a similar pattern graphically, however, the planned analysis was not statistically significant based on the absolute slopes but was when Day 1 to Day 29 and Day 29 to Day 1 changes were analyzed separately. The 4/2 arm was associated with a greater degree of variability in fatigue reflecting a possible “on‐off” effect whereby patients receiving the 4/2 schedule reported less fatigue at the beginning of each cycle compared to Day 29. The findings can inform care for individuals with advanced RCC receiving intermittent dosing of sunitinib.

Patient‐reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti‐CD22 antibody‐calicheamicin conjugate, demonstrated superior clinical activity versus standard‐of‐care (SOC) chemotherapies for relapsed/refractory B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the phase 3 randomized controlled INO‐VATE trial. The authors assessed patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) from that study.

Adjuvant sunitinib in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma: safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes in the S-TRAC trial

Abstract Background Adjuvant sunitinib has significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence post-nephrectomy (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.98; two-sided P = 0.03). We report safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving sunitinib and placebo in the S-TRAC trial. Patients and methods Patients were stratified by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and randomized (1 : 1) to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day) or placebo. Single dose reductions to 37.5 mg, dose delays, and dose interruptions were used to manage adverse events (AEs). Patients’ health-related quality of life, including key symptoms typically associated with sunitinib, were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results Patients maintained treatment for 9.5 (mean, SD 4.4) and 10.3 (mean, SD 3.7) months in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the sunitinib arm, key AEs occurred ∼1 month (median) after start of treatment and resolved within ∼3.5 weeks (median). Many (40.6%) AEs leading to permanent discontinuation were grade 1/2, and most (87.2%) resolved or were resolving by 28 days after last treatment. Patients taking sunitinib showed a significantly lower EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health status score versus placebo, although this reduction was not clinically meaningful. Patients reported symptoms typically related to sunitinib treatment with diarrhea and loss of appetite showing clinically meaningful increases. Conclusions In S-TRAC, AEs were predictable, manageable, and reversible via dose interruptions, dose reductions, and/or standard supportive medical therapy. Patients on sunitinib did report increased symptoms and reduced HRQoL, but these changes were generally not clinically meaningful, apart from appetite loss and diarrhea, and were expected in the context of known sunitinib effects. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375674.