BackgroundSorafenib significantly improves survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This phase IV study assessed sorafenib efficacy/safety in Taiwanese patients with advanced HCC and Child–Pugh A status.MethodsAll patients received 400 mg sorafenib BID. Safety, efficacy, sorafenib pharmacokinetics, and Child–Pugh progression were evaluated. A hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) prevention substudy assessed HFSR incidence and grade/severity and time to HFSR in 29 and 34 patients randomized to corticosteroid and noncorticosteroid ointments, respectively, and in 88 nonrandomized patients.ResultsThe 151 patients included 120 (80%) male patients and 81 (54%) with stage IV disease. Mean sorafenib dose was 626 mg/day, and median treatment duration was 4.2 months. Median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and time to progression (TTP) were 8.6, 2.7, and 3.8 months, respectively. Disease control and response rates (partial responses only) were 48 and 6.6%, respectively. Median TTP from Child–Pugh A to B/C was 88 days. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 89.4% of patients; none were new or unexpected. The most frequent grade ≥3 drug-related, treatment-emergent AEs were HFSR (13.2%), diarrhea (11.9%), and hypertension (6.6%). Corticosteroid ointment tended to reduce the severity and incidence of all HFSR-associated parameters. Pharmacokinetic exposure was unaltered by Child–Pugh progression. The final pharmacokinetic model predicted 13.1 and 33.8% reductions in sorafenib exposure over 6 and 12 months, respectively.ConclusionsThere was a trend of longer OS and TTP in Taiwanese patients with advanced HCC compared with patients with advanced HCC in the Asia–Pacific trial. Sorafenib exposure did not correlate with liver function. Reduced pharmacokinetic exposure over time was unrelated to reduced or interrupted dosing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12072-016-9774-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
IntroductionPain is a major symptom in many medical conditions which can be relieved thanks to analgesics. The goal of this work was to present an indirect comparison of efficacy and tolerability profiles of two analgesics, tramadol and tapentadol, in patients with chronic non-malignant pain.MethodsIn the absence of a head-to-head comparison between these two opioid drugs, model-based meta-analyses were used to characterize the pain intensity time dynamics and evaluate the proportions of most frequent adverse events (constipation, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and somnolence) and drop-outs (due to adverse event, as well as due to lack of efficacy) in each treatment group. Using these models, the investigational treatments were compared on the basis of Monte Carlo simulation outcomes.ResultsData were extracted from 45 Phase II and Phase III studies representing a total of 81 treatment arms, i.e., approximately 13,000 patients. The pain intensity model shows, that after having adjusted for differences in baseline pain intensity and placebo effects, tramadol 300 mg once daily (qd) was slightly more effective in reducing pain than tapentadol 100–250 mg twice daily (bid), with a 46% change from baseline for the former versus 36% for the latter. From a tolerability standpoint, both drugs showed, as expected, increased risks of adverse events compared to placebo. Yet, tapentadol was associated with slightly lower risks of constipation, and nausea than tramadol.ConclusionOverall, the analysis showed that the benefit–risk profiles of tramadol 300 mg qd and tapentadol 100–250 mg bid were approximately even. The amount of data to characterize dose–response relationships was sufficient only in the tramadol group; public access to tapentadol efficacy and tolerability readouts across a wide dose range in chronic non-malignant pain would allow a comparison of therapeutic indices, a straight quantitation of the benefit–risk ratio. Knowing that their side-effects have been identified as potential hindrance to prescription, a broad and open access to clinical trial data in this indication is encouraged in order to facilitate the evaluation of the opiate analgesics clinical utility.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40122-014-0023-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Nifurtimox (LAMPIT) has been used for decades for the treatment of Chagas disease, a chronic and potentially life‐threatening disease caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. The pharmacokinetic (PK) information on nifurtimox in humans derived from controlled clinical studies is very limited. The objective was to investigate and compare the population PK of nifurtimox in adult and pediatric patients with Chagas disease to confirm the clinical dosing regimen in children, which was based on allometric approaches using the concept that a dose‐equivalent exposure would reach equivalent antiparasitic efficacy as in adults. The resulting adult model adequately described the PK in adults. Significant predictors of the availability in PK were food intake, tablet formulation (fast‐ vs slow‐dissolution tablet), study, and body weight. As the resulting adult model could not adequately predict the sparse sampled pediatric patient data, these data were analyzed separately to derive exposure estimates for comparison with adult exposure. In the population PK model for pediatric patients, significant covariates were body weight and age. As compared to adults, children aged >2 years were estimated to have 50.6% higher apparent clearance. No hints of dose nonlinearity were observed in a dose range of 30 to 240 mg single dose in adults and 15 to 300 mg 3 times daily (8‐20 mg/kg) in children. Altogether, this study retroactively showed that the current mg/kg dosing regimen in children reached similar exposure as in adults receiving an 8 mg/kg total daily dose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.