Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Patient-Reported Quality of Life Before and After Chemoradiation for Intact Pancreas Cancer: A Prospective Registry Study

PurposeOur purpose was to determine the effect of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for patients with intact pancreas cancer.Methods and MaterialsWe reviewed a prospective QOL registry for patients with intact, clinically localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT between June 2015 and November 2018. QOL was assessed pre-CRT (immediately before CRT, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and at the completion of CRT with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) and its component parts: FACT-General (FACT-G) and hepatobiliary cancer subscore (HCS). A minimally important difference from pre-CRT was defined as ≥ 6, 5, and 8 points for FACT-G, HCS, and FACT-Hep, respectively.ResultsOf 157 patients who underwent CRT, 100 completed both pre- and post-CRT surveys and were included in the primary analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range, 23-90). National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability status was resectable (3%), borderline resectable (40%), or locally advanced (57%). Folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) (75%) or gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (42%) were given for a median of 6 cycles (range, 0-42) before CRT. Radiation therapy techniques included 3-dimensional conformal (22%), intensity modulated photon (55%), and intensity modulated proton (23%) radiation therapy to a median dose of 50 Gy (range, 36-62.5). Concurrent chemotherapy was most commonly capecitabine (82%). Sixty-three patients (63%) had surgery after CRT. The mean decline in FACT-G, HCS subscale, and FACT-Hep from pre- to post-CRT was 3.5 (standard deviation [SD], 13.7), 1.7 (SD 7.8), and 5.2 (SD 19.4), respectively. Each of these changes were statistically significant, but did not meet the minimally important difference threshold. Pancreatic head tumor location was associated with decline in FACT-Hep. Nausea was the toxicity with the greatest increase from pre- to post-CRT by both physician-assessment and patient-reported QOL.ConclusionsFor patients with intact pancreatic adenocarcinoma, modern CRT is well tolerated with minimal decline in QOL during treatment.