Assessment of the safety of glucocorticoid regimens in combination with abiraterone acetate for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer:a randomized, open-label phase 2 study

Importance: Abiraterone acetate is combined with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and with prednisone, 5 mg, once daily for newly diagnosed, high-risk, metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Understanding the physiological effects of these and other regimens is important. Objective: To evaluate the safety of abiraterone acetate with 4 glucocorticoid regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, randomized clinical trial (1:1:1:1) of 164 men with mCRPC from 22 hospitals in 5 countries who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention groups between June 2013 and October 2014. Analyses were conducted from August 2017 to June 2018. Interventions: Abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, once daily with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily (n = 41), 5 mg once daily (n = 41), 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 40), or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily (n = 42). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was no mineralocorticoid excess (grade ≥1 hypokalemia or grade ≥2 hypertension) through 24 weeks (6 cycles) from treatment. Results: Of 164 men (median [range] age, 70 [50-90] years) randomized to receive abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, daily with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, once daily, or 2.5 mg twice daily, or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily, 24 (70.6%) of 34 patients (95% CI, 53.8%-83.2%), 14 (36.8%) of 38 patients (95% CI, 23.4%-52.7%), 21 (60.0%) of 35 patients (95% CI, 43.6%-74.4%), and 26 (70.3%) of 37 patients (95% CI, 54.2%-82.5%), respectively, had no mineralocorticoid excess. Plasma adrenocorticotrophic hormone and urinary mineralocorticoid metabolites after 8 weeks were higher with prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily and 5 mg once daily than with 5 mg twice daily or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily. The level of urinary glucocorticoid metabolites appeared higher in patients who did not meet the primary end point, regardless of glucocorticoid regimen. Total lean body mass decreased in the prednisone groups and total body fat increased in the prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily and dexamethasone groups. In the dexamethasone group, there was an increase in serum insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, while total bone mineral density decreased. In the prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, 5 mg once daily, 2.5 mg twice daily, and dexamethasone groups, median radiographic progression-free survival was 18.5, 15.3, 12.8, and 26.6 months, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily met the prespecified threshold for the primary end point (95% CI excluded 50% mineralocorticoid excess); abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, once daily or 2.5 mg twice daily did not meet the threshold. Abiraterone acetate in combination with dexamethasone appeared to be particularly active but may be associated with adverse metabolic consequences

Treatment response, safety, and tolerability of paliperidone extended release treatment in patients recently diagnosed with schizophrenia

This study was designed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of oral paliperidone extended release (ER) in a sample of patients who were switched to flexible doses within the crucial first 5 years after receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia

The Patient, Investigator, Nurse, Carer Questionnaire (PINC-Q): a cross-sectional, retrospective, non-interventional study exploring the impact of less frequent medication administration with paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly as maintenance treatment for schizophrenia

Abstract Background To understand the implications of switching from paliperidone palmitate 1-monthly (PP1M) to paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) treatment of schizophrenia from the perspective of four key stakeholders: patients, physicians, nurses and carers. Methods This was a cross-sectional, retrospective, non-interventional study comprising a one-time questionnaire (PINC-Q) for adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with schizophrenia (International Classification of Diseases; ICD-10) and their physician, nurse and carer. Questionnaires were developed in association with patient and carer advocacy groups (GAMIAN and EUFAMI) and following an advisory board formed of psychiatrists and nurses. The degree of alignment between stakeholders was also examined. Results Responses were received from a total of 224 evaluable patients. For most patients (88.4%), responses were received from at least two other stakeholders. Patients were moderately ill with mild-to-moderate lack of insight and had received PP1M for a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 23.9 (21.28) months before switching to PP3M (duration mean [SD] 12.8 [3.72] months). The most frequently reported reasons to switch from PP1M to PP3M were ‘to live life as normally as possible’ and ‘patient convenience’. Over 79% of responses within each stakeholder group stated that PP3M helped the patients, with increased patient activity and social involvement, improved frequency and quality of physician–patient and nurse–patient communication and decreased perceived stigma. Conclusions The results of this study add to the increasing body of evidence supporting the benefits of PP3M in a population of patients with schizophrenia representative of real-world clinical practice

Paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in recently diagnosed schizophrenia

Objective: Relapse and acute exacerbation are common in schizophrenia and may impact treatment response and outcome. Evidence is conflicting in respect to superiority of long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapies versus oral antipsychotics in relapse prevention. This randomized controlled study assessed the efficacy of paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention

Treat to target versus standard of care for patients with Crohn's disease treated with ustekinumab (STARDUST): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3b trial

Background: A treat-to-target strategy, in which strictly defined treatment targets facilitate decision making in clinical practice, is advocated as an optimised management approach for some chronic disorders. The aim of the STARDUST trial was to assess whether a treat-to-target strategy with early endoscopy, regular biomarker and clinical symptom monitoring, and dose intensification for persistent inflammatory activity, was more successful in achieving endoscopic improvement at week 48 than a clinically driven maintenance strategy in patients with moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease receiving ustekinumab. Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3b trial included adults with active, moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220–450 and Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ≥3) for whom conventional therapy or one biologic therapy, or both, had failed. Patients received intravenous ustekinumab approximating 6 mg/kg at baseline and subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg at week 8. At week 16, patients with a CDAI improvement of 70 or more points from baseline were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard-of-care or treat-to-target maintenance treatment through week 48. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks and was stratified by biologic history status and baseline SES-CD score. All patients who signed informed consent, who were not screening failures, and who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in week 16 analyses. All patients included in week 16 analyses and randomly assigned to one of the maintenance treatment regimens were included in the week 48 efficacy and safety analyses (ie, on an intention-to-treat basis). Patients assigned to the treat-to-target arm received ustekinumab every 12 weeks or every 8 weeks based on SES-CD improvement from baseline and could escalate to every 4 weeks through week 48 if prespecified targets were missed. Patients assigned to the standard-of-care arm received ustekinumab every 12 weeks or every 8 weeks; those receiving treatment every 12 weeks could escalate per European labelling. The primary efficacy endpoint was endoscopic response at week 48 (SES-CD score ≥50% decrease from baseline), analysed by non-responder imputation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03107793, and is active but not recruiting. Findings: 498 patients received standard induction treatment, of whom 440 were randomly assigned to the treat-to-target group (n=219) or the standard-of-care group (n=221). At week 48, there was no significant difference in endoscopic response (83 [38%] of 219 patients vs 66 [30%] of 221 patients; p=0·087), endoscopic remission (25 [11%] vs 32 [15%]; p=0·334), mucosal healing (31 [14%] vs 37 [17%]; p=0·449), and clinical remission (135 [62%] vs 154 [70%]; p=0·072) between the two groups; clinical response was significantly lower in the treat-to-target group than in the standard-of-care group (149 [68%] vs 172 [78%]; p=0·020). Other endoscopic, clinical, and biomarker outcomes were generally not significantly different between groups. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (29 [13%] of 219 patients in the treat-to-target group vs 29 [13%] of 221 patients in the standard-of-care group), abdominal pain (23 [11%] vs 19 [9%]), arthralgia (24 [11%] vs 19 [9%]), and headache (24 [11%] vs 21 [10%]). Interpretation: Timely escalation of ustekinumab therapy for patients with Crohn's disease, based on early endoscopic response, clinical symptoms, and biomarkers, did not result in significantly better endoscopic outcomes at week 48 than symptom-driven decisions alone. Future studies need to confirm if some subgroups of patient might benefit from a treat-to-target strategy with ustekinumab. Funding: Janssen-Cilag

Treat to target versus standard of care for patients with Crohn's disease treated with ustekinumab (STARDUST):an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3b trial

Background: A treat-to-target strategy, in which strictly defined treatment targets facilitate decision making in clinical practice, is advocated as an optimised management approach for some chronic disorders. The aim of the STARDUST trial was to assess whether a treat-to-target strategy with early endoscopy, regular biomarker and clinical symptom monitoring, and dose intensification for persistent inflammatory activity, was more successful in achieving endoscopic improvement at week 48 than a clinically driven maintenance strategy in patients with moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease receiving ustekinumab. Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3b trial included adults with active, moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220–450 and Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ≥3) for whom conventional therapy or one biologic therapy, or both, had failed. Patients received intravenous ustekinumab approximating 6 mg/kg at baseline and subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg at week 8. At week 16, patients with a CDAI improvement of 70 or more points from baseline were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard-of-care or treat-to-target maintenance treatment through week 48. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks and was stratified by biologic history status and baseline SES-CD score. All patients who signed informed consent, who were not screening failures, and who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in week 16 analyses. All patients included in week 16 analyses and randomly assigned to one of the maintenance treatment regimens were included in the week 48 efficacy and safety analyses (ie, on an intention-to-treat basis). Patients assigned to the treat-to-target arm received ustekinumab every 12 weeks or every 8 weeks based on SES-CD improvement from baseline and could escalate to every 4 weeks through week 48 if prespecified targets were missed. Patients assigned to the standard-of-care arm received ustekinumab every 12 weeks or every 8 weeks; those receiving treatment every 12 weeks could escalate per European labelling. The primary efficacy endpoint was endoscopic response at week 48 (SES-CD score ≥50% decrease from baseline), analysed by non-responder imputation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03107793, and is active but not recruiting. Findings: 498 patients received standard induction treatment, of whom 440 were randomly assigned to the treat-to-target group (n=219) or the standard-of-care group (n=221). At week 48, there was no significant difference in endoscopic response (83 [38%] of 219 patients vs 66 [30%] of 221 patients; p=0·087), endoscopic remission (25 [11%] vs 32 [15%]; p=0·334), mucosal healing (31 [14%] vs 37 [17%]; p=0·449), and clinical remission (135 [62%] vs 154 [70%]; p=0·072) between the two groups; clinical response was significantly lower in the treat-to-target group than in the standard-of-care group (149 [68%] vs 172 [78%]; p=0·020). Other endoscopic, clinical, and biomarker outcomes were generally not significantly different between groups. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (29 [13%] of 219 patients in the treat-to-target group vs 29 [13%] of 221 patients in the standard-of-care group), abdominal pain (23 [11%] vs 19 [9%]), arthralgia (24 [11%] vs 19 [9%]), and headache (24 [11%] vs 21 [10%]). Interpretation: Timely escalation of ustekinumab therapy for patients with Crohn's disease, based on early endoscopic response, clinical symptoms, and biomarkers, did not result in significantly better endoscopic outcomes at week 48 than symptom-driven decisions alone. Future studies need to confirm if some subgroups of patient might benefit from a treat-to-target strategy with ustekinumab. Funding: Janssen-Cilag