Outcome and safety of TNFα antagonist therapy in 475 consecutive outpatients (with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthropathies) treated by a single physician according to their eligibility for clinical trials

ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of TNFα antagonists in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthropathies (SpA) treated by a single physician, according to the presence of the inclusion and non-inclusion criteria used to select patients for pivotal clinical trials.MethodsEffectiveness was evaluated based on four categories defined by the DAS28-ESR and BASDAI values, from a very good response (mean DAS-28-ESR less than 3.2 and mean BASDAI less than 2.0) to failure (DAS28-ESR unchanged or greater than 5.1 and BASDAI unchanged). Serious adverse events were defined as events that required permanent TNFα antagonist discontinuation or that led to sequelae, hospital admission, or death.ResultsThe study included 475 patients, 230 with RA, 226 with SpA, 10 with juvenile-onset arthritis, and nine with unclassifiable arthritis. Mean number of TNFα antagonists used per patient was 1.3 and mean duration of TNFα antagonist treatment was 28 ± 23 months. Overall, 41% of patients met the inclusion and non-inclusion criteria used in pivotal trials; the proportion was 43% in the RA group and 40% in the SpA group. These patients had a 3-fold higher rate of very good responses (54 versus 19%) and a 5-fold lower rate of failures (5 versus 25%) compared to the other patients. Of the 15 (3%) patients who died, none met pivotal trial criteria. The group that met pivotal trial criteria had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (11 versus 16%; Chi², p = 0.0001), although age was similar in the two groups (53 ± 16 years versus 57 ± 14 years).ConclusionPatients meeting the selection criteria used in pivotal trials had a higher response rate and significantly fewer serious adverse events.     

Commentary on “Cytoreductive radiofrequency ablation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with small primary tumours treated with sunitinib or interferon-α.” Tsimafeyeu I,Zart JS,Chung B,Kidney Cancer Research Bureau,Moscow, Russian Federation.: BJU Int 2013; 112(1):32–8. [Epub 2013 Jun 7]. doi: 10.1111/bju.12107.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the role of cytoreductive radiofrequency ablation (cRFA) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with small primary tumours treated with immuno- or targeted therapy. To assess the efficacy of sunitinib in patients with metastatic RCC with unresected small primary tumours.Patients and methodsThree parallel single-arm prospective studies were conducted. Eligibility criteria were nearly identical for all trials and included: histopathologically confirmed RCC; metastatic measurable disease; size of primary tumour <5 cm; good or intermediate prognosis according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center model; and no previous therapy. Study 1: Patients were treated with percutaneous cRFA under computed tomography guidance followed by interferon (IFN)-α, 9 MIU, s.c., three times per week. Study 2: Patients received cRFA followed by sunitinib in repeated 6-week cycles of 50 mg/day orally for 4 weeks, then 2 weeks off treatment. Study 3: Patients with unresected primary RCC received sunitinib alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsBaseline patient characteristics (age, gender, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, metastatic sites, primary tumour size) were similar in all three studies. Efficacy data for 114 evaluable patients showed an objective response rate of 8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5, 10.5) for study 1, 28.9% (95% CI 15.2, 34) for study 2, and 31.6% (95% CI 20.3, 38.9) for study 3. The median (95% CI) PFS times were 9.1 (6.9, 10.2), 13.4 (9.8, 14.4) and 12.7 (11.3, 13.5) months for studies 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Objective response rate was significantly higher and PFS significantly longer in the sunitinib trials than in study 1 (P<0.01 all differences); no differences were found between studies 2 and 3 (objective response rate, P = 0.1; PFS, P = 0.6). Study 1 met its primary endpoint, showing that PFS was significantly longer than the expected 5 months (P = 0.02). The median (95% CI) objective survival (OS) times were greater in study 2 (cRFA/sunitinib) and study 3 (sunitinib-alone) than in study 1 (IFN-α) at 27.2 (22.6, 31.8) and 22.5 (20.7, 24.3) vs 19.5 (16.3, 22.7) months, respectively. Differences were significant (study 1 vs 2, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55; P = 0.003; study 1 vs study 3 HR = 0.6, P = 0.01). OS was significantly longer in the cRFA/sunitinib group compared with the sunitinib-alone group (HR = 0.71; P = 0.04). There were no unexpected toxicities of medical treatment or complications of cRFA.ConclusionscRFA is a safe and effective approach for select patients with metastatic RCC treated with immunotherapy. The cRFA technique did not improve PFS in patients treated with sunitinib; cRFA probably has impact on OS in these patients. This needs to be tested in a larger trial. Sunitinib was effective in patients with metastatic RCC with unresected small primary tumours.     

Efficacy,safety, and tolerability of mirabegron in patients aged ≥65 yr with overactive bladder wet: a phase IV,double-blind,randomised, placebo-controlled study (PILLAR)

BackgroundThe majority of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) are aged >65 yr. There has been no prospectively designed study assessing treatment efficacy with the β3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, specifically in this age group.ObjectiveA phase IV study comparing flexibly dosed mirabegron versus placebo in elderly patients with OAB and urgency incontinence.Design, setting, and participantsCommunity-dwelling patients aged ≥65 yr with OAB for ≥3 mo.InterventionFollowing a 2-wk placebo run in, patients with one or more incontinence episodes, three or more urgency episodes, and an average of eight or more micturitions/24 h were randomised 1:1 to double-blind 25 mg/d mirabegron or matched placebo, for 12 wk. After week 4 or 8, the dose could be increased to 50 mg/d mirabegron/matched placebo based on patient and investigator discretion.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCoprimary endpoints: change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in the mean numbers of micturitions/24 h and incontinence episodes/24 h. Secondary endpoints: change from baseline to EOT in the mean volume voided/micturition, mean number of urgency episodes/24 h, and mean number of urgency incontinence episodes/24 h. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for the mean number of micturitions/24 h, mean volume voided/micturition, and mean number of urgency episodes/24 h. Stratified rank ANCOVA was used for the mean numbers of incontinence episodes/24 h and urgency incontinence episodes/24 h.Results and limitationsStatistically significant improvements were observed for mirabegron versus placebo in change from baseline to EOT in the mean number of micturitions/24 h, mean number of incontinence episodes/24 h, mean volume voided/micturition, mean number of urgency episodes/24 h, and mean number of urgency incontinence episodes/24 h. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known mirabegron safety profile.ConclusionsMirabegron efficacy, safety, and tolerability over 12 wk were confirmed in patients aged ≥65 yr with OAB and incontinence.Patient summaryWe examined the effect of mirabegron compared with placebo in people aged 65 yr or older with overactive bladder and incontinence. Mirabegron improved the symptoms of overactive bladder compared with placebo. Side effects were similar to those already known for mirabegron.