Phase I Trial of the Human Double Minute 2 Inhibitor MK-8242 in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose To evaluate MK-8242 in patients with wild-type TP53 advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods MK-8242 was administered orally twice a day on days 1 to 7 in 21-day cycles. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined on the basis of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and by mRNA expression of the p53 target gene pleckstrin homology-like domain, family A, member 3 ( PHLDA3). Other objectives were to characterize the PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship, correlate biomarkers with response, and assess tumor response. Results Forty-seven patients received MK-8242 across eight doses that ranged from 60 to 500 mg. Initially, six patients developed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): grade (G) 2 nausea at 120 mg; G3 fatigue at 250 mg; G2 nausea and G4 thrombocytopenia at 350 mg; and G3 vomiting and G3 diarrhea at 500 mg. DLT criteria were revised to permit management of GI toxicities. Dosing was resumed at 400 mg, and four additional DLTs were observed: G4 neutropenia and G4 thrombocytopenia at 400 mg and G4 thrombocytopenia (two patients) at 500 mg. Other drug-related G3 and G4 events included anemia, leukopenia, pancytopenia, nausea, hyperbilirubinemia, hypophosphatemia, and anorexia. On the basis of safety, tolerability, PK, and PD, the RP2D was established at 400 mg (15 evaluable patients experienced two DLTs). PK for 400 mg (day 7) showed Cmax 3.07 μM, Tmax 3.0 hours, t1/2 (half-life) 6.6 hours, CL/F (apparent clearance) 28.9 L/h, and Vd/F (apparent volume) 274 L. Blood PHLDA3 mRNA expression correlated with drug exposure ( R(2) = 0.68; P < .001). In 41 patients with postbaseline scans, three patients with liposarcoma achieved a partial response (at 250, 400, and 500 mg), 31 showed stable disease, and eight had progressive disease. In total, 27 patients with liposarcoma had a median progression-free survival of 237 days. Conclusion At the RP2D of 400 mg twice a day, MK-8242 activated the p53 pathway with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. The observed clinical activity (partial response and prolonged progression-free survival) provides an impetus for further study of HDM2 inhibitors in liposarcoma

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients inadequately controlled with prior statin monotherapy - The IN-CROSS study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of switching from a previous statin monotherapy to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg vs. rosuvastatin (ROSUVA) 10 mg. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study, 618 patients with documented hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or = 2.59 and or = 6 weeks prior to the study randomisation visit entered a 6-week open-label stabilisation/screening period during which they continued to receive their prestudy statin dose. Following stratification by study site and statin dose/potency, patients were randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 314) or ROSUVA 10 mg (n = 304) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: EZE/SIMVA produced greater reductions in LDL-C (-27.7% vs. -16.9%; p < or = 0.001), total cholesterol (-17.5% vs. -10.3%; p < or = 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (-23.4% vs. -14.0%; p < or = 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (-17.9% vs. -9.8%; p < or = 0.001) compared with ROSUVA, while both treatments were equally effective at increasing HDL-C (2.1% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.433). More patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.59 mmol/l (73% vs. 56%), < 2.00 mmol/l (38% vs. 19%) and < 1.81 mmol/l (25% vs. 11%) with EZE/SIMVA than ROSUVA (p < or = 0.001). A borderline significantly greater reduction in triglycerides (p = 0.056) was observed for EZE/SIMVA (-11.0%) vs. ROSUVA (-5.3%). There were no between-group differences in the incidences of adverse events or liver transaminase and creatine kinase elevations. CONCLUSION: EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg produced greater improvements in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apoB with a similar safety profile as for ROSUVA 10 mg

Lipid-Altering Efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/20 mg Compared to Rosuvastatin 10 mg in High-Risk Patients with and without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled Despite Prior Statin Monotherapy.

AIMS: This post hoc analysis compared the effects of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZE/SIMVA) or rosuvastatin 10 mg (ROSUVA) in uncontrolled high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) despite statin monotherapy. METHODS: Patients (n = 618) at high risk for coronary vascular disease with elevated LDL-C ≥100 and ≤190 mg/dL despite use of statins were randomized 1:1 to double-blind EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg or ROSUVA 10 mg for 6 weeks. Patients were classified as having T2DM based on ≥1 of the following: diagnosis of T2DM, antidiabetic medication, or FPG ≥126 mg/dL. This analysis evaluated percent changes from baseline in lipids among patients with (n = 182) and without T2DM (n = 434). RESULTS: EZE/SIMVA was more effective than ROSUVA at lowering LDL-C, TC, non-HDL-C, and apo B in the overall study population and within both subgroups. Numerically, greater between-treatment reductions in LDL-C, TC, non-HDL-C, and apo B were seen in patients with T2DM versus those without T2DM. A significant interaction (P= 0.015) was seen for LDL-C indicating that patients with T2DM achieved larger between-group reductions versus those without T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg versus ROSUVA 10 mg provided superior lipid reductions in patients with/without T2DM

Lipid-altering efficacy of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk patients with and without metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a clustering of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk factors. This post-hoc analysis compared the effects of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg in a cohort of 618 high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients with (n=368) and without (n=217) MetS who had previously been on statin monotherapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to double-blind ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg for 6 weeks. Least squares mean percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals in lipid efficacy parameters were calculated for the population and within subgroups. Treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly more effective than rosuvastatin at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non- high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (all p<0.001). No significant differences in treatment effects were seen between the presence and absence of MetS. In this post-hoc analysis of high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients the lipid-reducing effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin were not altered significantly by the presence of MetS

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant significantly improves lipid levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of baseline glycemic control

Harold E Bays,1 Eliot A Brinton,2 Joseph Triscari,3 Erluo Chen,3 Darbie Maccubbin,3 Alexandra A MacLean,3 Kendra L Gibson,3 Rae Ann Ruck,3 Amy O Johnson-Levonas,3 Edward A O&rsquo;Neill,3 Yale B Mitchel3 1Louisville Metabolic &amp; Atherosclerosis Research Center (L-MARC), Louisville, KY, USA; 2Utah Foundation for Biomedical Research, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 3Merck &amp; Co, Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA Background: The degree of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may alter lipid levels and may alter the efficacy of lipid-modifying agents. Objective: Evaluate the lipid-modifying efficacy of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) in subgroups of patients with T2DM with better or poorer glycemic control. Methods: Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from patients with T2DM who were randomized 4:3 to double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo (n=796), examining the lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT in patients with glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting plasma glucose levels above and below median baseline levels. Results: At Week 12 of treatment, ERN/LRPT significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a), compared with placebo, with equal efficacy in patients above or below median baseline glycemic control. Compared with placebo, over 36 weeks of treatment more patients treated with ERN/LRPT had worsening of their diabetes and required intensification of antihyperglycemic medication, irrespective of baseline glycemic control. Incidences of other adverse experiences were generally low in all treatment groups. Conclusion: The lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT are independent of the degree of baseline glycemic control in patients with T2DM (NCT00485758). Keywords: lipid-modifying agents, hyperglycemia, LDL, HDL, triglyceride