Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Suresnes, France

Davies M.,University of Leicester | Heller S.,University of Sheffield | Sreenan S.,Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland | Sapin H.,Lilly France | And 3 more authors.
Diabetes Care | Year: 2013

OBJECTIVE-This multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm study compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly (EQW) with titrated insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (with or without sulfonylureas). RESEARCH DESIGN ANDMETHODS-Patients were randomized to EQW (2 mg) or detemir (once or twice daily, titrated to achieve fasting plasma glucose ≤5.5 mmol/L) for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving A1C $le;7.0% and weight loss ≥1.0 kg at end point, analyzed by means of logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included measures of glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS-Of 216 patients (intent-to-treat population), 111 received EQWand 105 received detemir. Overall, 44.1% (95% CI, 34.7-53.9) of EQW-treated patients compared with 11.4% (6.0-19.1) of detemir-treated patients achieved the primary outcome (P < 0.0001). Treatment with EQWresulted in significantly greater reductions than detemir in A1C (least-square mean ±SE, -1.30±0.08%vs. -0.88±0.08%; P < 0.0001) and weight (-2.7±0.3 kg vs. +0.8±0.4 kg; P < 0.0001). Gastrointestinal- related and injection site-related adverse events occurredmore frequently with EQWthan with detemir. There was nomajor hypoglycemia in either group. Five (6%) patients in the EQW group and six (7%) patients in the detemir group experienced minor hypoglycemia; only one event occurred without concomitant sulfonylureas (detemir group). CONCLUSIONS-Treatment with EQW resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving target A1C and weight loss than treatment with detemir, with a low risk of hypoglycemia. These results suggest that EQWis a viable alternative to insulin detemir treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control using oral antidiabetes drugs. © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association. Source


Ghobrial I.M.,Dana-Farber Cancer Institute | Moreau P.,University of Nantes | Harris B.,Dana-Farber Cancer Institute | Poon T.,Dana-Farber Cancer Institute | And 7 more authors.
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2012

Purpose: Enzastaurin is a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that showed antiangiogenic, antiproliferative, and proapoptotic properties in vitro and antitumor activity in vivo in a xenograft Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) model. These findings provided the rationale for a multicenter phase II trial of oral enzastaurin in previously treated patients with WM. Experimental design: Patients who were treated with 1 to 5 prior regimens and who had a baseline immunoglobulin M level 2 times or more the upper limit of normal received oral enzastaurin 250 mg twice daily (500 mg total) after a single loading dose (day 1, cycle 1) of 375 mg 3 times daily (1,125 mg total) for 8 cycles of 28 days each or until progressive disease. Six patients who progressed during treatment with enzastaurin had dexamethasone added per protocol. Results: From July 2008 to December 2010, 42 patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (RR) was 38.1% (2 partial and 14 minor responses). One patient had grade 3 leukopenia and one patient died during the study from septic shock; both events were considered drug related. A statistically significant association between RR and interleukin 15 (IL-15) was observed, suggesting that higher concentration levels of IL-15 may be associated with better response. Conclusion: Enzastaurin was active and well tolerated in previously treated patients with WM. Because of the small sample size of this uncontrolled study, further assessment of the relationship between IL-15 and response to enzastaurin in patients with WM is required. These results warrant further investigation of enzastaurin for the treatment of WM. ©2012 AACR. Source


Myers J.,Medical Decision Modeling Inc. | Wielage R.C.,Medical Decision Modeling Inc. | Han B.,Eli Lilly and Company | Price K.,Eli Lilly and Company | And 3 more authors.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Year: 2014

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis. Methods. A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors. Results: Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics. Conclusions: This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses. © 2014 Myers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source


Yamamoto N.,National Cancer Center Hospital | Nokihara H.,National Cancer Center Hospital | Yamada Y.,National Cancer Center Hospital | Uenaka K.,Eli Lilly and Company | And 5 more authors.
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Year: 2013

Purpose: LY2334737 is an oral gemcitabine prodrug. This Phase I study assessed the safety and tolerability of LY2334737 in Japanese patients with solid tumors and evaluated pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors received escalating doses of LY2334737 once daily for 14 days, followed by a 7-day drug-free period. Cycles were repeated until discontinuation criteria were met. Results: Of 13 patients treated, 3 received 20 mg/day, 6 received 30 mg/day, 4 received 40 mg/day. On the 40 mg dose, 3 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): hepatic toxicities (e.g., Grade [G]3/4 transaminase and G1-3 bilirubin elevation) and G4 thrombocytopenia; all 3 showed features of disseminated intravascular coagulation. One additional DLT occurred on the 30 mg dose (G3 transaminase elevation). Exploratory pharmacogenetic analyses identified a genetic variation in the CES2 gene potentially associated with these DLTs. PK data showed no clear relationship between the AUC of gemcitabine and its incorporation into leukocyte DNA; 2 of the 3 DLT patients had high incorporation. Two patients (30 mg/day) achieved stable disease with progression-free survival lasting 135 and 155 days. Conclusions: LY2334737 was tolerated by Japanese patients up to 30 mg/day. The toxicities observed at the 40 mg dose may require the development of alternative dosing schedules. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Source


Wick W.,University of Heidelberg | Wick W.,German Cancer Research Center | Steinbach J.P.,Goethe University Frankfurt | Platten M.,University of Heidelberg | And 10 more authors.
Neuro-Oncology | Year: 2013

BackgroundThis study's primary objective was evaluation of the progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter hypermethylation postsurgically treated with enzastaurin before and concomitantly with radiation therapy, followed by enzastaurin maintenance therapy. PFS-6 of at least 55% was set to be relevant compared with the data of the EORTC 26981/22981 NCIC CE.3 trial.MethodsAdult patients with a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks who were newly diagnosed with a histologically proven supratentorial glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation were eligible. Patients were treated with enzastaurin prior to, concomitantly with, and after standard partial brain radiotherapy. Here we report on a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled phase II study of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation treated with enzastaurin and radiation therapy within 4 study periods.ResultsPFS-6 was 53.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.8-65.6). The median overall survival was 15.0 months (95% CI: 11.9-17.9) for all patients, 3.9 months (95% CI: 0.8-9.0) for patients with biopsy, 15.4 months (95% CI: 10.1-17.9) for patients with partial resection, and 18.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-28.5) for patients with complete resection. The safety profile in this study was as expected from previous trials, and the therapy was well tolerated.ConclusionsPFS-6 missed the primary planned outcome of 55%. The secondary exploratory analysis according to resection status of the different subgroups of patients with biopsies, partial resection, and complete resection demonstrates the strong prognostic influence of resection on overall survival. © 2013 © The Author(s) 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. Source

Discover hidden collaborations