Ruxolitinib Cream in Adolescents/Adults with Atopic Dermatitis Meeting Severity Thresholds for Systemic Therapy: Exploratory Analysis of Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Standard therapy for patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) typically includes topical therapies; however, patients with more extensive AD and/or AD refractory to topical therapy may benefit from systemic treatment. Ruxolitinib cream monotherapy has demonstrated superior antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects versus vehicle in patients with mild to moderate AD, and long-term disease control with as-needed use. Here, efficacy/safety of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through 52 weeks was assessed in a subset of patients with moderate and/or more extensive disease. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2 included patients who, at baseline, had Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) ≥ 16, and affected body surface area (BSA) ≥ 10% (higher severity of disease threshold subgroup). Disease control and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1249 patients in the overall population, 78 (6.2%) met all higher severity of disease threshold criteria (continuous-use vehicle-controlled period: 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, n = 32; vehicle, n = 13); 28 and 4 of these patients, respectively, continued as-needed 1.5% ruxolitinib cream during the long-term safety (LTS) period. At week 8 (continuous-use), IGA-treatment success (IGA 0/1, with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline) was achieved by 19/32 (59.4%) patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus no patients applying vehicle. In the LTS period, those achieving clear/almost clear skin increased from 19/28 patients (67.9%; continuous-use: week 8) to 18/23 patients (78.3%; as-needed use: week 52) in patients applying ruxolitinib cream from day 1. Ruxolitinib cream was well tolerated, with few application site reactions, regardless of disease severity threshold. Efficacy and safety results were similar to the overall study population. CONCLUSION: Patients with AD who meet standard disease severity eligibility criteria for systemic therapy may achieve IGA-treatment success with clear/almost clear skin with continuous-use ruxolitinib cream, and maintain long term-disease control with as-needed ruxolitinib cream monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03745638/NCT03745651

Characterisation and molecular biology of two plant viruses

Imperial Users onl

Efficacy, Safety, and Long-Term Disease Control of Ruxolitinib Cream Among Adolescents with Atopic Dermatitis: Pooled Results from Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly pruritic, inflammatory skin disease, affects approximately 7% of adolescents globally. A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor, demonstrated safety and efficacy among adolescents/adults in two phase 3 studies (TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2). OBJECTIVE: To describe safety and efficacy of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle and long-term disease control of ruxolitinib cream among adolescents aged 12-17 years from pooled phase 3 study data. METHODS: Patients [≥ 12 years old with AD for ≥ 2 years, Investigators Global Assessment score (IGA) 2/3, and 3-20% affected body surface area (BSA) at baseline] were randomized 2:2:1 to ruxolitinib cream (0.75%/1.5%) or vehicle for 8 weeks of continuous use followed by a long-term safety (LTS) period up to 52 weeks with as-needed use. Patients originally applying vehicle were rerandomized 1:1 to 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream. Efficacy measures at week 8 included IGA treatment success (IGA-TS; i.e., score of 0/1 with ≥ 2 grade improvement from baseline), ≥ 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), and ≥ 4-point improvement in itch numerical rating scale (NRS4). Measures of disease control during the LTS period included IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and percentage affected BSA. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 1249 randomized patients, 245 (19.6%) were aged 12-17 years. Of these, 45 patients were randomized to vehicle and 92 patients to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream. A total of 104/137 (75.9%) patients continued on 1.5% ruxolitinib cream in the LTS period [82/92 (89.1%) continued on 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; 22/45 (48.9%) patients on vehicle were reassigned to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream], and 83/104 (79.8%) of these patients completed the LTS period. At week 8, substantially more patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle achieved IGA-TS (50.6% versus 14.0%), EASI-75 (60.9% versus 34.9%), and NRS4 (52.1% versus 17.4%; P = 0.009). The mean (SD) reduction in itch NRS scores was significantly greater in patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle from day 2 [- 0.9 (1.9) versus -0.2 (1.4); P = 0.03]. During the LTS period, mean (SD) trough steady-state ruxolitinib plasma concentrations at weeks 12/52 were 27.2 (55.7)/15.5 (31.5) nM. The percentage of patients achieving IGA score of 0 or 1 was sustained or further increased with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; mean affected BSA was generally low (< 3%; i.e., mild disease). Through 52 weeks, application site reactions occurred in 1.8% of adolescent patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream at any time; no patients had serious adverse events. There were no serious infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects were demonstrated with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream in the subset of adolescent patients with AD, comparable with those observed in the overall study population; long-term, as-needed use maintained disease control and was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT03745638 (registered 19 November 2018) and NCT03745651 (registered 19 November 2018)

Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer

Purpose: The receptors for hepatocyte and vascular endothelial cell growth factors (MET and VEGFR2, respectively) are critical oncogenic mediators in gastric adenocarcinoma. The purpose is to examine the safety and efficacy of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2 receptors, for the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma.Patients and Methods: Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients using intermittent (240 mg/day, for 5 days every 2 weeks) or daily (80 mg/day) dosing schedules. Thirty evaluable patients were required to achieve alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.2 to test the alternative hypothesis that single-agent foretinib would result in an ORR of ≥25%. Up to 10 additional patients could be enrolled to ensure at least eight with MET amplification. Correlative studies included tumor MET amplification, MET signaling, pharmacokinetics and plasma biomarkers of foretinib activity.Results: From March 2007 until October 2009, 74 patients were enrolled; 74% male; median age, 61 years (range, 25–88); 93% had received prior therapy. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 10 (23%) patients receiving intermittent dosing and five (20%) receiving daily dosing; SD duration was 1.9–7.2 months (median 3.2 months). Of 67 patients with tumor samples, 3 had MET amplification, one of whom had SD. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 91% of patients. Rates of hypertension (35% vs. 15%) and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (23% vs. 8%) were higher with intermittent dosing. In both patients with high baseline tumor phospho-MET (pMET), the pMET:total MET protein ratio decreased with foretinib treatment.Conclusion: These results indicate that few gastric carcinomas are driven solely by MET and VEGFR2, and underscore the diverse molecular oncogenesis of this disease. Despite evidence of MET inhibition by foretinib, single-agent foretinib lacked efficacy in unselected patients with metastatic gastric cancer.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00725712</p

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.]

Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer

<div><p>Purpose</p><p>The receptors for hepatocyte and vascular endothelial cell growth factors (MET and VEGFR2, respectively) are critical oncogenic mediators in gastric adenocarcinoma. The purpose is to examine the safety and efficacy of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2 receptors, for the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma.</p> <p>Patients and Methods</p><p>Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients using intermittent (240 mg/day, for 5 days every 2 weeks) or daily (80 mg/day) dosing schedules. Thirty evaluable patients were required to achieve alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.2 to test the alternative hypothesis that single-agent foretinib would result in an ORR of ≥25%. Up to 10 additional patients could be enrolled to ensure at least eight with <i>MET</i> amplification. Correlative studies included tumor <i>MET</i> amplification, MET signaling, pharmacokinetics and plasma biomarkers of foretinib activity.</p> <p>Results</p><p>From March 2007 until October 2009, 74 patients were enrolled; 74% male; median age, 61 years (range, 25–88); 93% had received prior therapy. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 10 (23%) patients receiving intermittent dosing and five (20%) receiving daily dosing; SD duration was 1.9–7.2 months (median 3.2 months). Of 67 patients with tumor samples, 3 had <i>MET</i> amplification, one of whom had SD. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 91% of patients. Rates of hypertension (35% vs. 15%) and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (23% vs. 8%) were higher with intermittent dosing. In both patients with high baseline tumor phospho-MET (pMET), the pMET:total MET protein ratio decreased with foretinib treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p><p>These results indicate that few gastric carcinomas are driven solely by MET and VEGFR2, and underscore the diverse molecular oncogenesis of this disease. Despite evidence of MET inhibition by foretinib, single-agent foretinib lacked efficacy in unselected patients with metastatic gastric cancer.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00725712" target="_blank">NCT00725712</a></p> </div