METHODS: This open-label, phase 2 study was conducted at 179 academic centres and community clinics in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC of any histology, with MET amplification by tissue biopsy fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH; MET gene copy number of ≥5 or MET-to-CEP7 ratio of ≥2) or liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (MET plasma gene copy number of ≥2·3), following progression on first-line osimertinib. Patients received oral tepotinib 500 mg plus oral osimertinib 80 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed objective response in patients with MET amplification by central FISH treated with tepotinib plus osimertinib with at least 9 months of follow-up. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one study drug dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03940703 (enrolment complete).
FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2020, and Nov 4, 2022, 128 patients (74 [58%] female, 54 [42%] male) were enrolled and initiated tepotinib plus osimertinib. The primary activity analysis population included 98 patients with MET amplification confirmed by central FISH, previous first-line osimertinib and at least 9 months of follow-up (median 12·7 months [IQR 9·9-20·3]). The confirmed objective response rate was 50·0% (95% CI 39·7-60·3; 49 of 98 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were peripheral oedema (six [5%] of 128 patients), decreased appetite (five [4%]), prolonged electrocardiogram QT interval (five [4%]), and pneumonitis (four [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (13%) patients. Deaths of four (3%) patients were assessed as potentially related to either trial drug by the investigator due to pneumonitis (two [2%] patients), decreased platelet count (one [1%]), respiratory failure (one [1%]), and dyspnoea (one [1%]); one death was attributed to both pneumonitis and dyspnoea.
INTERPRETATION: Tepotinib plus osimertinib showed promising activity and acceptable safety in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib, suggesting a potential chemotherapy-sparing oral targeted therapy option that should be further investigated.
FUNDING: Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945).
METHODS: Thirty-two Sprague-Dawley male rats were randomly allocated into four groups (n=8): control, diabetes mellitus (DM) rats and diabetic rats treated with ifenprodil at a lower dose (0.5 μg/day) (I 0.5) or higher dose (1.0 μg/day) (I 1.0). DM was induced by a single injection of streptozotocin at 60 mg/kg on day 0 of experimentation. Diabetic status was assessed on day 3 of the experimentation. The responses on both tactile and thermal stimuli were assessed on day 0 (baseline), day 14 (pre-intervention), and day 22 (post-intervention). Ifenprodil was given intrathecally for 7 days from day 15 until day 21. On day 23, 5% formalin was injected into the rats' hind paw and the nociceptive responses were recorded for 1 hour. The rats were sacrificed 72 hours post-formalin injection and an analysis of the spinal NR2B expression was performed.
RESULTS: DM rats showed a significant reduction in pain threshold in response to the tactile and thermal stimuli and higher nociceptive response during the formalin test accompanied by the higher expression of phosphorylated spinal NR2B in both sides of the spinal cord. Ifenprodil treatment for both doses showed anti-allodynic and anti-nociceptive effects with lower expression of phosphorylated and total spinal NR2B.
CONCLUSION: We suggest that the pain process in the streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat that has been modulated is associated with the higher phosphorylation of the spinal NR2B expression in the development of PDN, which is similar to other models of neuropathic rats.
Methods: Specialists from allergology, dermatology, and otorhinolaryngology were surveyed on practical considerations and key decision points when treating patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria.
Results: Clinicians felt the need for additional tools for diagnosis of these diseases and a single drug with all preferred features of an antihistamine. Challenges in treatment include lack of clinician and patient awareness and compliance, financial constraints, and treatment for special patient populations such as those with concomitant disease. Selection of optimal second-generation antihistamines depends on many factors, particularly drug safety and efficacy, impact on psychomotor abilities, and sedation. Country-specific considerations include drug availability and cost-effectiveness. Survey results reveal bilastine as a preferred choice due to its high efficacy and safety, suitability for special patient populations, and the lack of sedative effects.
Conclusions: Compliance to the international guidelines is present among allergists, dermatologists and otorhinolaryngologists; however, this is lower amongst general practitioners (GPs). To increase awareness, allergy education programs targeted at GPs and patients may be beneficial. Updates to the existing international guidelines are suggested in APAC to reflect appropriate management for different patient profiles and varying symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.