Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended over warfarin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer largely based on results of a single, large trial. OBJECTIVE To study the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute, symptomatic VTE in patients with active cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, open-label study with blinded central adjudication of study outcomes enrolled patients in 164 centers in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North, Central, and South America between August 2010 and November 2013. Adult patients with active cancer (defined as histologic diagnosis of cancer and receiving anticancer therapy or diagnosed with, or received such therapy, within the previous 6 months) and objectively documented proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, with a life expectancy greater than 6 months and without contraindications for anticoagulation, were followed up for 180 days and for 30 days after the last study medication dose for collection of safety data. INTERVENTIONS Tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 6 months vs conventional therapy with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 5 to 10 days followed by warfarin at a dose adjusted to maintain the international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary efficacy outcome was a composite of centrally adjudicated recurrent DVT, fatal or nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and incidental VTE. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and overall mortality. RESULTS Nine hundred patients were randomized and included in intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. Recurrent VTE occurred in 31 of 449 patients treated with tinzaparin and 45 of 451 patients treated with warfarin (6-month cumulative incidence, 7.2% for tinzaparin vs 10.5% for warfarin; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]; P = .07). There were no differences in major bleeding (12 patients for tinzaparin vs 11 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.40-1.99]; P = .77) or overall mortality (150 patients for tinzaparin vs 138 patients for warfarin; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.36]; P = .54). A significant reduction in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was observed with tinzaparin (49 of 449 patients for tinzaparin vs 69 of 451 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40-0.84]; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with active cancer and acute symptomatic VTE, the use of full-dose tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) daily compared with warfarin for 6 months did not significantly reduce the composite measure of recurrent VTE and was not associated with reductions in overall mortality or major bleeding, but was associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Further studies are needed to assess whether the efficacy outcomes would be different in patients at higher risk of recurrent VTE

Talactoferrin alfa versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FORTIS-M trial)

Background: Talactoferrin alfa is an oral dendritic cell (DC)-mediated immunotherapy (DCMI). We tested whether talactoferrin was superior to placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: An FORTIS-M trial was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of talactoferrin (1.5 g p.o. BID) versus placebo BID, in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC whose disease had failed two or more prior regimens. Treatment was administered for a maximum of five 14-week cycles. The primary efficacy end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included 6- and 12-month survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Seven hundred and forty-two patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to talactoferrin (497) or placebo (245). The median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 7.66 months in the placebo arm and 7.49 months in the talactoferrin arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.04; 95% CI, 0.873-1.24; P = 0.6602]. The 6-month survival rates were 59.9% (95% CI, 53.4% to 65.8%) and 55.7% (95% CI, 51.1% to 59.9%), respectively. The 12-month survival rates were 32.2% (95% CI, 26.3% to 38.2%) and 30.9% (95% CI, 26.8% to 35%), respectively. The median PFS rates were 1.64 months and 1.68 months, respectively (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.835-1.16; P = 0.8073). The DCRs were 38.4 and 37.6%, respectively [stratified odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.698-1.33; P = 0.8336]. The safety profiles were comparable between arms. Conclusions: There was no improvement in efficacy with talactoferrin alfa in patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease had failed two or more previous regimens. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology All rights reserved

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL