Search

Abstract Introduction Standard therapy for patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) typically includes topical therapies; however, patients with more extensive AD and/or AD refractory to topical therapy may benefit from systemic treatment. Ruxolitinib cream monotherapy has demonstrated superior antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects versus vehicle in patients with mild to moderate AD, and long-term disease control with as-needed use. Here, efficacy/safety of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through 52 weeks was assessed in a subset of patients with moderate and/or more extensive disease. Methods This post hoc analysis of TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2 included patients who, at baseline, had Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) ≥ 16, and affected body surface area (BSA) ≥ 10% (higher severity of disease threshold subgroup). Disease control and safety were assessed. Results Of 1249 patients in the overall population, 78 (6.2%) met all higher severity of disease threshold criteria (continuous-use vehicle-controlled period: 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, n = 32; vehicle, n = 13); 28 and 4 of these patients, respectively, continued as-needed 1.5% ruxolitinib cream during the long-term safety (LTS) period. At week 8 (continuous-use), IGA-treatment success (IGA 0/1, with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline) was achieved by 19/32 (59.4%) patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus no patients applying vehicle. In the LTS period, those achieving clear/almost clear skin increased from 19/28 patients (67.9%; continuous-use: week 8) to 18/23 patients (78.3%; as-needed use: week 52) in patients applying ruxolitinib cream from day 1. Ruxolitinib cream was well tolerated, with few application site reactions, regardless of disease severity threshold. Efficacy and safety results were similar to the overall study population. Conclusion Patients with AD who meet standard disease severity eligibility criteria for systemic therapy may achieve IGA-treatment success with clear/almost clear skin with continuous-use ruxolitinib cream, and maintain long term-disease control with as-needed ruxolitinib cream monotherapy. Trial Registration Number NCT03745638/NCT03745651.

AbstractPurpose: Ruxolitinib (selective Janus kinase [JAK] 1 and JAK2 inhibitor) cream demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the phase 3 TRuE-AD studies. In TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2 (NCT03745638/NCT03745651), adults and adolescents with mild to moderate AD were randomized to apply twice-daily ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for eight weeks. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib cream by anatomic region, focusing on head/neck (HN) lesions that are typically difficult to manage and disproportionately affect quality of life (QoL).Materials and methods: Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) responses in anatomic regions were evaluated in the pooled population (N = 1208) and among patients with baseline HN involvement (n = 663). Itch, Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA), QoL, and application site tolerability were also assessed.Results: By Week 2 (earliest assessment), ruxolitinib cream application resulted in significant improvements across all EASI anatomic region subscores and AD signs versus vehicle, with further improvements through Week 8. Significantly more patients with HN involvement who applied ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle achieved clinically meaningful improvements in itch, IGA, and QoL. Application site reactions with ruxolitinib cream were infrequent (

Objective The arginase inhibitor INCB001158 was evaluated for safety (primary endpoint) in locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy were also assessed.Methods and analysis In this non-randomised, open-label, three-part phase 1 study, INCB001158 was orally administered two times per day as monotherapy or in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Dose expansion was conducted in tumour-type cohorts (with or without prior anti−PD-1/PD-L1 (programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1) therapy).Results A total of 107 patients received INCB001158 50–150 mg two times per day as monotherapy, and 153 patients, including 6 with moderate renal impairment, received INCB001158 50–100 mg two times per day combined with pembrolizumab. INCB001158 exposure was similar between groups (median, 56 days (monotherapy); 84 days (combination)). 49 patients (45.8%) on monotherapy and 76 (51.7%) on combination therapy experienced grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). The most common INCB001158-related AEs were fatigue (n=10/107 (9.3%)) and nausea (n=10/107 (9.3%)) with monotherapy and diarrhoea (n=24/147 (16.3%)) and fatigue (n=22/147 (15.0%)) with combination therapy. The highest response rate was seen in the anti–PD-1/PD-L1–naive combination therapy group with head/neck squamous cell carcinoma (overall response rate, 19.2%; 4/26 partial responses, 1/26 complete response). Consistent with arginase inhibition activity, plasma arginine dose-dependently increased. Arginase 1 expression in the tumour microenvironment did not correlate with response.Conclusions INCB001158 was generally well tolerated. Response rates did not exceed background for given tumour types despite demonstrable pharmacodynamic activity. Overall, the limited antitumour activity of arginase inhibition observed suggests that the role of arginine depletion in cancer is multifaceted.Trial registration number NCT02903914.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

PURPOSE:The receptors for hepatocyte and vascular endothelial cell growth factors (MET and VEGFR2, respectively) are critical oncogenic mediators in gastric adenocarcinoma. The purpose is to examine the safety and efficacy of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2 receptors, for the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients using intermittent (240 mg/day, for 5 days every 2 weeks) or daily (80 mg/day) dosing schedules. Thirty evaluable patients were required to achieve alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.2 to test the alternative hypothesis that single-agent foretinib would result in an ORR of ≥ 25%. Up to 10 additional patients could be enrolled to ensure at least eight with MET amplification. Correlative studies included tumor MET amplification, MET signaling, pharmacokinetics and plasma biomarkers of foretinib activity. RESULTS:From March 2007 until October 2009, 74 patients were enrolled; 74% male; median age, 61 years (range, 25-88); 93% had received prior therapy. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 10 (23%) patients receiving intermittent dosing and five (20%) receiving daily dosing; SD duration was 1.9-7.2 months (median 3.2 months). Of 67 patients with tumor samples, 3 had MET amplification, one of whom had SD. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 91% of patients. Rates of hypertension (35% vs. 15%) and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (23% vs. 8%) were higher with intermittent dosing. In both patients with high baseline tumor phospho-MET (pMET), the pMET:total MET protein ratio decreased with foretinib treatment. CONCLUSION:These results indicate that few gastric carcinomas are driven solely by MET and VEGFR2, and underscore the diverse molecular oncogenesis of this disease. Despite evidence of MET inhibition by foretinib, single-agent foretinib lacked efficacy in unselected patients with metastatic gastric cancer.