LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2: a phase 3, randomized trial of tovorafenib vs. chemotherapy in pediatric and young adult patients with newly diagnosed low-grade glioma harboring an activating RAF alteration

Abstract Background Pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) is essentially a single pathway disease, with most tumors driven by genomic alterations affecting the mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (MAPK) pathway, predominantly KIAA1549::BRAF fusions and BRAF V600E mutations. This makes pLGG an ideal candidate for MAPK pathway-targeted treatments. The type I BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib, in combination with the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the systemic treatment of BRAF V600E-mutated pLGG. However, this combination is not approved for the treatment of patients with tumors harboring BRAF fusions as type I RAF inhibitors are ineffective in this setting and may paradoxically enhance tumor growth. The type II RAF inhibitor, tovorafenib (formerly DAY101, TAK-580, MLN2480), has shown promising activity and good tolerability in patients with BRAF-altered pLGG in the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 study, with an objective response rate (ORR) per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria of 67%. Tumor response was independent of histologic subtype, BRAF alteration type (fusion vs. mutation), number of prior lines of therapy, and prior MAPK-pathway inhibitor use. Methods LOGGIC/FIREFLY-2 is a two-arm, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of tovorafenib monotherapy vs. current standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy in patients < 25 years of age with pLGG harboring an activating RAF alteration who require first-line systemic therapy. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either tovorafenib, administered once weekly at 420 mg/m2 (not to exceed 600 mg), or investigator’s choice of prespecified SoC chemotherapy regimens. The primary objective is to compare ORR between the two treatment arms, as assessed by independent review per RANO-LGG criteria. Secondary objectives include comparisons of progression-free survival, duration of response, safety, neurologic function, and clinical benefit rate. Discussion The promising tovorafenib activity data, CNS-penetration properties, strong scientific rationale combined with the manageable tolerability and safety profile seen in patients with pLGG led to the SIOPe-BTG-LGG working group to nominate tovorafenib for comparison with SoC chemotherapy in this first-line phase 3 trial. The efficacy, safety, and functional response data generated from the trial may define a new SoC treatment for newly diagnosed pLGG. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05566795. Registered on October 4, 2022

Safety and efficacy of oral nemonoxacin versus levofloxacin in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background/Purpose: Nemonoxacin is a novel nonfluorinated quinolone with excellent in vitro activity against most pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), especially Gram-positive isolates. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nemonoxacin compared with levofloxacin in patients with CAP. Methods: A phase 3, multicenter, randomized (2:1) controlled trial was conducted in adult CAP patients receiving nemonoxacin 500 mg or levofloxacin 500 mg orally once daily for 7–10 days. Clinical, microbiological response and adverse events were assessed. Non-inferiority was determined in terms of clinical cure rate of nemonoxacin compared with that of levofloxacin in a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. NCT registration number: NCT01529476. Results: A total of 527 patients were randomized and treated with nemonoxacin (n = 356) or levofloxacin (n = 171). The clinical cure rate at test-of-cure visit was 94.3% (300/318) for nemonoxacin and 93.5% (143/153) for levofloxacin in the mITT population [difference (95% CI), 0.9% (−3.8%, 5.5%)]. The microbiological success rate was 92.1% (105/114) for nemonoxacin and 91.7% (55/60) for levofloxacin in the bacteriological mITT population [difference (95% CI), 0.4% (−8.1%, 9.0%)]. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between nemonoxacin (33.1%, 118/356) and levofloxacin (33.3%, 57/171) (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Nemonoxacin 500 mg once daily for 7–10 days is as effective and safe as levofloxacin for treating adult CAP patients in terms of clinical cure rates, microbiological success rates, and safety profile.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01529476. Keywords: Clinical outcome, Community-acquired pneumonia, Levofloxacin, Nemonoxacin, Randomized controlled trial, Safet