FLORA-5/GOG3035: Frontline chemo-immunotherapy (paclitaxel-carboplatin-oregovomab [PCO] versus chemotherapy (paclitaxel-carboplatin-placebo [PCP]) in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)—Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global, multinational study

TPS5619

Background: Oregovomab, a murine IgGκ1 monoclonal antibody, has high affinity binding to tumor associated antigen CA125, thus, rendering the target antigen CA125 more immunogenic or “neoantigen-like” through altered and enhanced antigen processing and presentation to specific T cells. This phenomenon is hypothesized to bypass tumor-associated immune suppression when oregovomab is combined with chemotherapy. In a randomized phase II study, oregovomab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) induced tumor immunity and demonstrated significant improvement in median PFS (41.8 months(m) PCO vs 12.2 m PC, HR 0.46, p=0.0027) and median OS (N.E. PCO vs 43.2 m PC, HR O.35, p=0.043) in patients with previously untreated EOC. Oregovomab combined with PC had a favorable toxicity profile. FLORA-5/GOG3035, the definitive confirmatory global registration trial, is currently recruiting patients in the front-line setting. Methods: The study is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Optimally debulked patients with FIGO III/IV EOC and serum CA125 ≥ 50 U/ml receiving adjuvant (Cohort 1) or patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy post-interval cytoreductive surgery (Cohort 2) will be randomized to PC + oregovomab or placebo (PCO vs. PCP). Patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations are excluded. Chemotherapy will be administered every 3 weeks in both cohorts. Oregovomab/placebo is administered simultaneously at cycles 1, 3, and 5 of chemotherapy with an additional dose at 12 weeks following cycle 5 in Cohort 1. Neoadjuvant patients will be administered oregovomab/placebo after debulking surgery at cycles 4 and 6 with two additional doses at 6- and 18-weeks following cycle 6 in Cohort 2. No other front-line maintenance therapy is permitted. The primary objective is PFS determined by RECIST 1.1. Cohort 1 will recruit 372 patients with a 90% power to detect a difference with an alpha of 0.025 and a hazard ratio of 0.65 when 252 PFS events have been observed. Cohort 2 will be analyzed separately recruiting 232 patients with a 90% power to detect a difference with an alpha of 0.025 and a hazard ratio of 0.60 when 165 PFS events have been observed. An interim futility analysis will be performed. Secondary objectives include OS, frequency and severity of AEs, and QoL. Exploratory objectives include iRECIST, TFST, TSST, PFS2, and evaluation of correlative biomarkers. The study is actively enrolling in the US, Canada, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile. 179 patients were enrolled at time of submission. Clinical trial information: NCT04498117.

Long-term safety of a weekly and monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine depot (CAM2038) in the treatment of adult out-patients with opioid use disorder

AIMS

To assess the long-term safety of subcutaneous buprenorphine (CAM2038) weekly and monthly depots.

DESIGN

Phase 3, open-label, observational, multi-centre 48-week trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02672111).

SETTING

Twenty-six out-patient sites (United States, United Kingdom, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia) between 14 December 2015 and 12 April 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight adults with opioid use disorder; 227 received CAM2038 (37 initiated onto CAM2038 and 190 converted from sublingual buprenorphine).

INTERVENTIONS

CAM2038 weekly (8, 16, 24 or 32 mg) or monthly (64, 96, 128 or 160 mg) with flexible dosing and individualized titration utilizing multiple CAM2038 weekly and monthly doses.

MEASUREMENTS

Safety variables, urine toxicology samples and self-reported illicit opioid use were collected at each visit. Participants were administered a patient satisfaction survey at months 6 and 12, completed by 162 of 227 (71.4%) participants.

FINDINGS

The study treatment period was completed by 167 of 227 (73.6%) participants. At least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported by 143 of 227 (63.0%) participants, of whom 60 of 227 (26.4%) reported as being drug-related. Most of the TEAEs, reported by 128 of 227 (56.4%) of participants, were mild or moderate in intensity. Injection-site reactions were reported by 46 of 227 (20.3%) participants, with most [45 of 46 (97.8%)] reported as mild to moderate. Five participants (2.2%) discontinued the study drug due to a TEAE, two cases (0.9%) of which were injection-site-related. No serious adverse events were attributed to the study drug. Among those remaining in the study, the percentage of opioid-negative urine tests combined with self-reports was 63.0% (17 of 27) in new-to-treatment participants and 82.8% (111 of 134) for those converted from sublingual buprenorphine. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with CAM2038.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous buprenorphine delivered weekly or monthly (CAM2038) was well tolerated, with a systemic safety profile consistent with the known profile of sublingual buprenorphine. CAM2038 weekly and monthly was associated with high retention rates and low levels of illicit opioid use throughout this study.

Weekly and Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Formulations vs Daily Sublingual Buprenorphine With Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder may be improved by sustained-release formulations.

Objective

To determine whether treatment involving novel weekly and monthly subcutaneous (SC) buprenorphine depot formulations is noninferior to a daily sublingual (SL) combination of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride in the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This outpatient, double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at 35 sites in the United States from December 29, 2015, through October 19, 2016. Participants were treatment-seeking adults with moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder.

Interventions

Randomization to daily SL placebo and weekly (first 12 weeks; phase 1) and monthly (last 12 weeks; phase 2) SC buprenorphine (SC-BPN group) or to daily SL buprenorphine with naloxone (24 weeks) with matched weekly and monthly SC placebo injections (SL-BPN/NX group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary end points tested for noninferiority were response rate (10% margin) and the mean proportion of opioid-negative urine samples for 24 weeks (11% margin). Responder status was defined as having no evidence of illicit opioid use for at least 8 of 10 prespecified points during weeks 9 to 24, with 2 of these at week 12 and during month 6 (weeks 21-24). The mean proportion of samples with no evidence of illicit opioid use (weeks 4-24) evaluated by a cumulative distribution function (CDF) was an a priori secondary outcome with planned superiority testing if the response rate demonstrated noninferiority.

Results

A total of 428 participants (263 men [61.4%] and 165 women [38.6%]; mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.0] years) were randomized to the SL-BPN/NX group (n = 215) or the SC-BPN group (n = 213). The response rates were 31 of 215 (14.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 37 of 213 (17.4%) for the SC-BPN group, a 3.0% difference (95% CI, -4.0% to 9.9%; P < .001). The proportion of opioid-negative urine samples was 1099 of 3870 (28.4%) for the SL-BPN/NX group and 1347 of 3834 (35.1%) for the SC-BPN group, a 6.7% difference (95% CI, -0.1% to 13.6%; P < .001). The CDF for the SC-BPN group (26.7%) was statistically superior to the CDF for the SL-BPN/NX group (0; P = .004). Injection site adverse events (none severe) occurred in 48 participants (22.3%) in the SL-BPN/NX group and 40 (18.8%) in the SC-BPN group.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with SL buprenorphine, depot buprenorphine did not result in an inferior likelihood of being a responder or having urine test results negative for opioids and produced superior results on the CDF of no illicit opioid use. These data suggest that depot buprenorphine is efficacious and may have advantages.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02651584.

Efficacy and tolerability of atorvastatin/fenofibrate fixed-dose combination tablet compared with atorvastatin and fenofibrate monotherapies in patients with dyslipidemia: a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

Coadministration of statin and fenofibrate monotherapies is frequently used to treat patients with dyslipidemia; however, a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet is not currently marketed.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates a new FDC tablet of atorvastatin 40 mg and fenofibrate 100 mg.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group Phase IIb study. Adults with dyslipidemia (non-HDL-C >130 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] > or =150 but < or =500 mg/dL) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive the FDC, atorvastatin 40 mg, or fenofibrate 145 mg for 12 weeks. Study medication was taken once daily in the evening, without regard to meals. Patients attended follow-up visits after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of the double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy end points were the mean percentage changes from baseline to the final visit (week 12) in non-HDL-C, HDL-C, and TG. Secondary variables were LDL-C, VLDL-C particle concentration, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocysteine, creatinine, myeloperoxidase, and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2. Tolerability was assessed by adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, and ECGs.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 220) were aged 26 to 87 years; 115 (52.3%) were men and 105 (47.7%) were women; 189 (85.9%) were white, 17 (7.7%) were black, and 15 (6.8%) were Hispanic or Latino; and mean (SD) weight was 200.5 (40.85) lb (range, 103.5-367.4 lb). Previous treatments were statins (25.9% [57/220]), fibrates (1.8% [4/220]), and dietary supplements (25.5% [56/220]); 57.7% (127/220) of patients were treatment naive. Use of the FDC was associated with an improvement in non-HDL-C (-44.8%) that was significantly greater than with fenofibrate monotherapy (-16.1%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from that with atorvastatin monotherapy (-40.2%; P = NS). HDL-C increased significantly more in the FDC group (19.7%) than with atorvastatin (6.5%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from fenofibrate (18.2%; P = NS). TG lowering in the FDC group (-49.1%) was significantly greater than with both atorvastatin (-28.9%; P < 0.001) and fenofibrate (-27.8%; P = 0.001). LDL-C lowering in the FDC group (-42.3%) was significantly greater than with fenofibrate (-13.9%; P < 0.001) but not significantly different from atorvastatin (-43.1%; P = NS). The FDC had either comparable or significantly greater improvements in other lipid variables and multiple secondary variables. The FDC was generally well tolerated; the tolerability profile was consistent with those of atorvastatin and fenofibrate monotherapies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (ie, those occurring after the first dose of study medication) were recorded in 43 of 73 patients (58.9%) for the FDC, 49 of 74 (66.2%) for atorvastatin, and 48 of 73 (65.8%) for fenofibrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 12-week study, patients with dyslipidemia treated with the 40/100-mg atorvastatin/ fenofibrate FDC had a significantly greater reduction in TG than those treated with atorvastatin 40 mg or higher-dose fenofibrate 145 mg. Treatment with the FDC was also associated with a significantly greater reduction in non-HDL-C compared with fenofibrate alone and a greater increase in HDL-C compared with atorvastatin alone. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Leptin resistance following over-expression of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B in liver

Obesity is typically associated with resistance to leptin, yet the mechanism by which leptin signaling becomes impaired is poorly understood. Here we sought to determine if the development of obesity and leptin resistance correlates with increased expression of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) in peripheral tissues and whether over-expression of this phosphatase, specifically in liver, could alter the leptin-mediated effects on feeding and glucose metabolism. Obesity was induced in mice through a high-fat diet that resulted in hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia and hyperleptinemia. Resistance to leptin was confirmed as exogenous leptin administration reduced food intake in animals on low-fat, but not high-fat diets. Diet-induced resistance to leptin and insulin was associated with increased hepatic levels of PTP1B. Intriguingly, hepatic adenoviral over-expression of PTP1B in ob/ob mice attenuated the ability of exogenous leptin to reduce both plasma glucose levels and food intake. These findings suggest that leptin reduces both plasma glucose and food intake in part through actions on the liver, and hepatic leptin resistance resulting from over-expression of PTP1B may contribute to the development of both diabetes and obesity.