OBJECTIVES: The DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY)-Asia study is one of nine independently powered studies assessing the efficacy of starting doses of statins in achieving target lipid levels in different countries worldwide. DISCOVERY-Asia was a 12-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study conducted in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.
RESULTS: A total of 1482 adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk (> 20%/10 years, type 2 diabetes, or a history of coronary heart disease) were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily (o.d.) or atorvastatin 10 mg o.d. The percentage of patients achieving the 1998 European Joint Task Force low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of < 3.0 mmol/L at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin group (n = 950) compared with the atorvastatin group (n = 471) (79.5 vs. 69.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for 1998 European goals for total cholesterol (TC), and the 2003 European goals for LDL-C and TC. LDL-C and TC levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin. Both drugs were well-tolerated and the incidence and type of adverse events were similar in each group.
TRIALS REGISTRATION: The trial registry summary is available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241488
CONCLUSIONS: This 12-week study showed that the starting dose of rosuvastatin 10 mg o.d. was significantly more effective than the starting dose of natorvastatin 10 mg o.d. at enabling patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia to achieve European goals for LDL-C and TC in a largely Asian population in real-life clinical practice. The safety profile of rosuvastatin 10 mg is similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg in the Asian population studied here, and is consistent with the known safety profile of rosuvastatin in the white population.
CASE: A 60-year-old woman presented with abdominal discomfort and hyperleukocytosis. She was diagnosed as CML in the chronic phase with positive BCR-ABL1 transcripts. Due to the failure to obtain an optimal response with imatinib treatment, it was switched to nilotinib. She responded well to nilotinib initially and achieved complete haematological and cytogenetic responses, with undetectable BCR-ABL1 transcripts. However, in 4 years she developed molecular relapse. Mutation analysis which was done 70 months after commencement of nilotinib showed the presence of BCRABL1 kinase domain mutation with nucleotide substitution at position 1187 from Histidine(H) to Proline(P) (H396P). Currently, she is on nilotinib 400mg twice daily. Her latest molecular analysis showed the presence of residual BCR-ABL1 transcripts at 0.22%.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis in CML patients with persistent BCR-ABL1 positivity in spite of treatment. Early detection and identification of the type of BCRABL1 mutation are important to guide appropriate treatment options as different mutation will have different sensitivity to TKI.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR).
RESULTS: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004].
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.