METHODS: We performed a double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial among non-Japanese Asian adults with endoscopically confirmed healed EE from April 2015 to February 2019. Patients from China, South Korea, and Malaysia were randomized to vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg once daily or lansoprazole 15 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was endoscopically confirmed EE recurrence rate over 24 weeks with a noninferiority margin of 10% using a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded.
RESULTS: Among 703 patients, EE recurrence was observed in 24/181 (13.3%) and 21/171 (12.3%) patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg, respectively, and 47/184 (25.5%) patients receiving lansoprazole (differences: -12.3% [95% CI, -20.3% to -4.3%] and -13.3% [95% CI, -21.3% to -5.3%], respectively), meeting the primary endpoint of noninferiority to lansoprazole in preventing EE recurrence at 24 weeks. Evidence of superiority (upper bound of 95% CI <0%) was also observed. At 12 weeks, endoscopically confirmed EE recurrence was observed in 5/18, 2/20, and 7/20 of patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, and lansoprazole, respectively. TEAEs were experienced by 66.8% (157/235), 69.0% (156/226), and 65.3% (158/242) of patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, and lansoprazole, respectively. The most common TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection in 12.8% (30/235) and 12.8% (29/226) patients in vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg groups, respectively and 8.7% (21/242) patients in lansoprazole group.
CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan maintenance therapy was well-tolerated and noninferior to lansoprazole for preventing EE recurrence in Asian patients with healed EE.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02388737.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
METHODS: In this open-label phase III study (PROFILE 1029), patients were randomized 1:1 to receive orally administered crizotinib 250 mg twice daily continuously (3-week cycles) or intravenously administered chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, or carboplatin [at a dose to produce area under the concentration-time curve of 5-6 mg·min/mL]) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. PFS confirmed by independent radiology review was the primary end point.
RESULTS: Crizotinib significantly prolonged PFS (hazard ratio, 0.402; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.286-0.565; p < 0.001). The median PFS was 11.1 months with crizotinib and 6.8 months with chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 87.5% (95% CI: 79.6-93.2%) with crizotinib versus 45.6% (95% CI: 35.8-55.7%) with chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were increased transaminase levels, diarrhea, and vision disorders with crizotinib and leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia with chemotherapy. Significantly greater improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcomes were seen in crizotinib-treated versus chemotherapy-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: First-line crizotinib significantly improved PFS, objective response rate, and patient-reported outcomes compared with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in East Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, which is similar to the results from PROFILE 1014. The safety profiles of crizotinib and chemotherapy were consistent with those previously published.