Search

Background: Breathlessness frequently becomes severe among people with respiratory disease. Mirtazapine, a widely used antidepressant, has shown promise in the modulation of respiratory sensation and the response to it, as well as reducing feelings of panic, which often accompanies breathlessness. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of mirtazapine to alleviate severe persisting breathlessness., Methods: This international, multicentre, phase 3, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial across 16 centres in seven countries (Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, and the UK), recruited adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung diseases, or both, and grade 3 or 4 of the modified Medical Research Council breathlessness scale. Consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral mirtazapine or matching placebo for 56 days. Randomisation was by minimisation. The initial mirtazapine dose was 15 mg, escalating to a maximum of 45 mg per day, tapered at treatment end. Participants, caregivers, assessors, and investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was worst breathlessness in the preceding 24 h measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), at 56 days post-treatment start, with follow-up to 180 days. The primary analysis was performed in the modified intention-to-treat population using multivariable multi-level repeated measures model. This trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10487976 and ISRCTN15751764 [Australia and New Zealand]) and EudraCT (2019-002001-21) and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 4, 2021 and March 28, 2023, we enrolled 225 eligible participants (148 men and 77 women, 113 to the mirtazapine group and 112 to the placebo group). The median age was 74 years (IQR 67-78). No evidence of a difference was found in worst breathlessness at day 56 between mirtazapine and placebo (difference in adjusted mean NRS score was 0·105 [95% CI -0·407 to 0·618]; p=0·69). Although the study was underpowered, the primary endpoint effect did not reach the pre-specified treatment effect of 0·55 for worst breathlessness score reduction that the study was powered to detect for the primary analysis. There were 215 adverse reactions in 72 (64%) of 113 participants in the mirtazapine group versus 116 in 44 (40%) of 110 participants in the placebo group; 11 serious adverse events in six (5%) participants in the mirtazapine group versus eight in seven (6%) participants in the placebo group; and one (1%) suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction in the mirtazapine group. At day 56, there were three deaths in the mirtazapine group and two deaths in the placebo group. At day 180, there were seven deaths in the mirtazapine group and 11 deaths in the placebo group., Interpretation: Our findings suggested that mirtazapine of doses 15 to 45 mg daily over 56 days does not improve severe breathlessness among patients with COPD or interstitial lung diseases and might cause adverse reactions. Based on these findings, we do not recommend mirtazapine as a treatment to alleviate severe breathlessness., Funding: EU Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No. 825319); Cicely Saunders International Breathlessness Programme; National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration South London; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council-EU (application ID: APP1170731)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests IJH reports grants from EU, Marie Curie Cancer Care, and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and is Scientific Director of Cicely Saunders International, NIHR Emeritus Senior Investigator, and is an Honorary Clinical Consultant in Palliative Medicine for hospitals under Kings College Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust outside of the submitted work. CEB reports grants from the EU, NIHR, AstraZeneca as well as an industry collaboration and a personal fee from Roche outside of the submitted work. JMBr reports grants from the EU and reports being an uncompensated NIHR Health Technology Assessment Funding Committee Chair outside of the submitted work. DCC reports personal fees from Helsinn Pharmaceuticals, Mayne Pharma International, Nous Group, iCare Dust Disease Board, and an unpaid consultant to Chris O'Brien Lighthouse outside of the submitted work. BF reports grants from the Wellcome Trust and is a member of the Ethics Advisory Board Our Future Health, Assurance Board member Cass Review, EU appointed Ethics Advisor to the River EU project, Advisory Board Member Italian MS ConCure project, Advisory Group for Monash University, and Advisory Panel Member for Economic and Social Research Council outside of the submitted work. SPH reports personal fees from Trevi Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and is a Trustee for Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis outside of the submitted work. CB, MJJ, AOO, KR, and STS report grants from the EU. MM reports grants from the EU, UKRI, and NIHR. MK and PJ report grants from the EU and Poland Ministry of Science and Higher Education for participation in Horizon 2020. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CONCORDE is the first phase I drug-radiotherapy (RT) combination platform in non-small-cell lung cancer, designed to assess multiple different DNA damage response inhibitors in combination with radical thoracic RT. Time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) methodology will inform dose escalation individually for each different DNA damage response inhibitor-RT combination and a randomized calibration arm will aid attribution of toxicities. We report in detail the novel statistical design and implementation of the TiTE-CRM in the CONCORDE trial., Methods: Statistical parameters were calibrated following recommendations by Lee and Cheung. Simulations were performed to assess the operating characteristics of the chosen models and were written using modified code from the R package dfcrm., Results: The results of the simulation work showed that the proposed statistical model setup can answer the research questions under a wide range of potential scenarios. The proposed models work well under varying levels of recruitment and with multiple adaptations to the original methodology., Conclusion: The results demonstrate how TiTE-CRM methodology may be used in practice in a complex dose-finding platform study. We propose that this novel phase I design has potential to overcome some of the logistical barriers that for many years have prevented timely development of novel drug-RT combinations.

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) develop bone metastases. Despite advances in systemic treatment options and the use of bone targeted agents in the management of bone metastases to reduce skeletal morbidity, there remains an unmet need for further treatment options. Radium-223 (Ra 223 ) is an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical that is preferentially taken up into bone at sites of increased osteoblastic activity where it emits high-energy, short-range alpha-particles that could provide a targeted anti-tumour effect on bone metastases. Here we evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy findings of the combination of Ra 223 with capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with MBC with bone involvement., Methods: CARBON is a multi-centre, open-label phase IB/IIA study evaluating the combination of Ra 223 (55 kBq/kg day 1 given on 6 weekly schedule) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m 2 bd days 4-17 every 21 days) in patients with bone metastases from MBC (± other disease sites). Other eligibility criteria included ECOG performance status 0-2, ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for MBC and current bisphosphonate or denosumab use for ≥ 6 weeks. The phase IB part of the trial (6 patients) was conducted to provide preliminary feasibility and safety of capecitabine + Ra 223 . Thereafter, 28 patients were randomised (2:1) to capecitabine + Ra 223 or capecitabine alone to further characterise the safety profile and evaluate efficacy, the primary efficacy endpoint being the bone turnover marker (urinary n-telopeptide of type I collagen) change from baseline to end of cycle 5 and secondary endpoints of time to first symptomatic skeletal event, and disease progression at extra-skeletal and bone disease., Results: In addition to bone metastases, 10/23 [44%] and 13/23 [57%] capecitabine + Ra 223 and 2/11 [18%] and 9/11 [82%] capecitabine alone patients had soft tissue and visceral disease sites respectively. More capecitabine + Ra 223 patients had received prior chemotherapy for MBC: 11/23 [48%] vs 2/11 [18%]. The analysis populations comprise 34 patients (23 capecitabine + Ra 223 , 11 capecitabine); 2 patients randomised to capecitabine + Ra 223 received capecitabine alone and are included in the capecitabine arm. Median number of cycles received was 8.5 in capecitabine + Ra 223 (range 3-12) and 12 in the capecitabine arm (range 1-12). 94/95 prescribed Ra 223 cycles were administered. No dose limiting toxicities were seen in phase IB and no patients developed grade ≥ III diarrhoea. Gastrointestinal, haematological and palmer-planter erthyrodysesthesia adverse events were similar in both arms. Although formal statistical comparisons were not made, changes in bone turnover markers, the times to extra-skeletal progression and bone disease progression, and the frequency of symptomatic skeletal events were similar across the two treatment arms., Conclusion: Capecitabine + Ra 223 at the planned dose was safe and feasible in MBC patients with bone metastases. However, no efficacy signals were seen that might suggest greater efficacy of the combination over capecitabine alone clinically or biochemically., Competing Interests: Janet Brown declared research grants (to her institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca and Bayer and personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, BMS, Ipsen, Sandoz, MSD and Bayer and support for attending meetings from Ipsen.  Matthew Winter declared consulting fees from Gilead, Novartis and Eli Lilly, payment for lectures/presentations/speakers bureaus from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Easai and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis and Easai. Robert Coleman declared consulting fees from AstraZeneca,  Boehringer Ingelheim, ITM and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amgen, ITM, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; and has a patent pending and share options with Inbiomotion.  Caroline Wilson declared consultancy fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen and Roche Iain MacPherson declared consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, In3Bio, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and travel support from Eisai and Roche. Richard Eastell declared consultancy funding from IDS, Sandoz, Samsung, Haoma Medica, CL Bio, Biocon, Takeda, meeting presentations from Pharmacosmos, Alexion and Amgen and grant funding from Amgen, Roche, Pharmacosmos and Alexion. Chris Twelves declared fees from AstraZenenca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD and Eisai.  Sacha Howell declared speaker fees and advisory board fees from Pfizer. Carlo Palmieri declared grant funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer and Seagen, travel support from Gilead and Roche and honoraria from Astrazeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. All other authors declared no conflicts of interests., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier GmbH.)