Rationale

Respiratory-related hospitalizations of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are more frequent than those for acute IPF exacerbations and are associated with poor outcomes.

Objectives

To compare the risk of nonelective hospitalization by type (all-cause, respiratory related, and non-respiratory related) and death after hospitalization with use of pirfenidone versus placebo over 52 weeks using data derived from three phase III IPF clinical trials.

Methods

Individual patient data was pooled from three phase III randomized, placebo-controlled studies of pirfenidone for IPF (the two CAPACITY [Clinical Studies Assessing Pirfenidone in IPF: Research of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes] trials and the ASCEND [Assessment of Pirfenidone to Confirm Efficacy and Safety in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis] trial), including all patients randomized to pirfenidone 2,403 mg/d (n = 623) or placebo (n = 624). The risk of hospitalization over 52 weeks was compared using standard time-to-event methods. Among those hospitalized, the risk of death after hospitalization was compared with adjustment for treatment group propensity.

Measurements and main results

A total of 1,247 patients (692 from the CAPACITY trials and 555 from the ASCEND trial) were included in the pooled analysis. Pirfenidone was associated with lower risk of respiratory-related hospitalization than placebo (7% vs. 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.77; P = 0.001), but all-cause (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = 0.528) or non-respiratory-related hospitalization (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92-1.88; P = 0.145) was not. Among those hospitalized for any reason, treatment with pirfenidone was associated with lower risk of death after hospitalization up to 52 weeks after randomization, but this association was no longer significant with longer follow-up.

Conclusions

In a pooled analysis of three phase III IPF clinical trials, patients receiving pirfenidone had a lower risk of nonelective respiratory-related hospitalization over the course of 1 year. The effect of pirfenidone on death after hospitalization is uncertain.

Because many patients with unresectable basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are aged ≥65 years, this study explores the efficacy and safety of vismodegib in these patients with locally advanced (la) or metastatic (m) basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in the ERIVANCE BCC trial and the expanded access study (EAS).We compared patients aged ≥65 years to patients aged <65 years taking vismodegib 150 mg/day, using descriptive statistics for response and safety. Patients aged ≥65 years (laBCC/mBCC) were enrolled in ERIVANCE BCC (33/14) and EAS (27/26). Investigator-assessed best overall response rate in patients ≥65 and <65 years was 46.7%/35.7% and 72.7%/52.6% (laBCC/mBCC), respectively, in ERIVANCE BCC and 45.8%/33.3% and 46.9%/28.6%, respectively, in EAS. These differences were not clinically meaningful. Safety was similar in both groups, although those aged ≥65 years had a higher percentage of grade 3-5 adverse events than those aged <65 years. Vismodegib demonstrated similar clinical activity and adverse events regardless of age.

Purpose

This open-label, multicenter study was designed to allow access to vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma, bridging the time between end of enrollment in the phase III registration trial (December 2010) and commercial availability following US Food and Drug Administration approval of vemurafenib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma (August 2011).

Patients and methods

Eligible patients had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF mutation (detected by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). Unlike previous vemurafenib trials, patients with poor performance status (PS) and treated brain metastases were permitted. Enrolled patients received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily.

Results

Of 374 patients enrolled at 29 US sites (December 2010 to October 2011), 371 patients received vemurafenib and were followed up for a median of 2.8 months (the study had a prespecified end upon vemurafenib approval and commercial availability). At baseline, most patients (75%) had stage M1c disease, and 19% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 or 3; 72% of patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma, 27% received prior ipilimumab, and 29% radiotherapy for prior brain metastases. Because reassessment data to confirm response were not available for most patients, point estimates of objective response rate (ORR) are reported. Among 241 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 54% (median time to response, 1.9 months). The ORR in non-central nervous system sites in patients with previously treated brain metastases (n = 68) was 53%. The ORR in prior ipilimumab-treated patients (n = 68) was 52%. For patients with PS of 0 or 1 (n = 210) and 2 or 3 (n = 31), the ORRs were 55%, and 42%, respectively. The safety profile observed was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The number of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients with PS 2 or 3 than in those with PS 0 or 1 (10% vs. 5%, respectively). Adverse events requiring a dose reduction (at least 1 level) occurred in 11% of patients, and 9 patients (2%) experienced events leading to vemurafenib withdrawal, including 2 with repeated QT interval prolongation.

Discussion

This study confirmed the established rapid and high tumor response rate achievable with vemurafenib in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Several groups not included in previous studies, including patients with previously treated brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 2 to 3, or previous ipilimumab treatment had benefitted from vemurafenib similar to the overall population. No new safety signals were detected.