Background: To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of BIBF 1120 in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic relapsed NSCLC in whom first-or second-line platinumbased chemotherapy failed were randomly allocated to daily 250 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. or 150 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response (RECIST). Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were reported.Results: Seventy-three patients received BIBF 1120. Median PFS was 6.9 weeks, with no significant difference between treatment arms. Median overall survival (OS) was 21.9 weeks. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1 patients (n = 56) had a median PFS of 11.6 weeks and a median OS of 37.7 weeks. Tumour stabilisation was achieved in 46% of patients (ECOG 0-1 patients: 59%), with one confirmed partial response (250 mg b.i.d.). Most commonly reported drug-related AEs were nausea (57.5%), diarrhoea (47.9%), vomiting (42.5%), anorexia (28.8%), abdominal pain (13.7%) and reversible alanine transaminase (13.7%) and aspartate aminotransferase elevations (9.6%). BIBF 1120 displayed dose-linear pharmacokinetic characteristics. Conclusion:Continuous treatment with BIBF 1120 was well tolerated, with no difference in efficacy between treatment arms. PFS and objective response with single-agent treatment in advanced disease warrants further exploration.

Lemmel syndrome is a rare clinical entity characterized by the presence of a periampullary duodenal diverticulum resulting in compression and dilatation of the pancreatic and common bile ducts, accompanied by obstructive jaundice. Gastric outlet obstruction is not a known complication of this syndrome, and there are no standardized approaches to its treatment. We present the first case of Lemmel syndrome presenting as gastric outlet obstruction and provide the results of a systematic literature review.

IMPORTANCE Pharmaceutical manufacturers can receive 6 additional months of market exclusivity for performing pediatric clinical trials of brand-name drugs widely used in adults. Congress created this incentive in 1997 because these drugs were being used off-label in children without such trials. OBJECTIVE To review updates to drug labeling and the cost to consumers of extending market exclusivity related to the pediatric exclusivity program. DESIGN From government records, we identified 54 drugs that earned the pediatric exclusivity incentive between 2007 and 2012. We evaluated labeling changes from the pediatric studies. We then extracted trial details from clinical review documents and used industry estimates of trial costs on a per-patient basis to estimate cost of investment for trials (with a 10% cost of capital). To calculate the net return and cost to consumers during the 6-month exclusivity period, we estimated additional revenue for the 48 drugs with available information.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For each drug, we evaluated labeling changes and costs associated with pediatric trials under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the cost to consumers of 6-month market exclusivity extensions. RESULTSThe 141 trials in our sample enrolled 20 240 children (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3 trials and 127-556 patients per drug). These trials led to 29 extended indications and 3 new indications, as well as new safety information for 16 drugs. Median cost of investment for trials was $36.4 million (IQR, $16.6 to $100.6 million). Among 48 drugs with available financial information, median net return was $176.0 million (IQR, $47.0 million to $404.1 million), with a median ratio of net return to cost of investment of 680% (IQR, 80% to 1270%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Clinical trials conducted under the US Food and DrugAdministration's pediatric exclusivity program have provided important information about the effectiveness and safety of drugs used in children. The costs to consumers have been high, exceeding the estimated costs of investment for conducting the trials. As an alternative, policymakers should consider direct funding of such studies.

No abstract

7635 Background: Vascular endothelial-(VEGF), platelet derived- (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) with their receptors compose critical cellular pathways controlling angiogenesis. BIBF 1120 is an oral potent triple angiokinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR kinases. Methods: In this double blind multi-center trial, patients with an ECOG score of 0–2 with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) relapsed NSCLC after failure of first or second line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to daily treatment with 2x250 mg or 2x150 mg of BIBF 1,120 until progression. In the event of dose limiting toxicity, a single dose reduction to open label treatment with 2x150 or 2x100 mg of BIBF 1,120 was allowed. Patients with stable brain metastases or squamous cell carcinoma were not excluded. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and objective tumor response (RECIST, determined every 6 weeks). Results: Seventy three of 74 patients enrolled received BIBF 1120 (61% males, median age: 64 years, range 36–80). The most common histology was adenocarcinoma (55%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (23%). The median PFS of all patients (n= 73) was 1.6 months without significant difference between both treatment arms. The stable disease rate was 48% without objective tumour responses. However, patients with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 (n= 57) had a median PFS of 2.9 months and a three- and 5 months PFS rate of 46% and 31%, without any difference between both treatment arms. The stable disease rate was 59%. Patients treated with 2x250 mg per day had more dose limiting CTCAE Grade 3 and 4 toxicities compared with patients treated with 2x150 mg (27% versus 2.8%, p=0.006, two-sided Fisher-test). The most frequent adverse events irrespective of relatedness observed in 73 patients were of CTCAE Grade 1 or 2 and included nausea (41%), diarrhoea (41%), vomiting (33%), fatigue (29%) and abdominal pain (22%). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included nausea (8%), diarrhoea (7%), vomiting (4%), abdominal pain (4%) and AST and/or ALT elevations (5.4%). Conclusions: BIBF 1120 is safe and well tolerated and showed promising efficacy data in ECOG 0–1 patients. A high disease control rate of 59% could be observed. [Table: see text]