Search

Abstract: Objective: The efficacy and safety of bortezomib‐based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in clinical trials may differ from the oncology practice experience. The electronic VELCADE® OBservational Study was designed to prospectively evaluate bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) in real‐world medical practice. Method: Patients scheduled to receive intravenous bortezomib for MM were eligible. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes, including response, time to response, time to next therapy, treatment‐free interval, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included safety and healthcare resource utilization. Results: In total, 873 patients with a median of two therapy lines prior to initiating bortezomib were included. The overall response rate (≥partial response) was 69%, including 37% complete response/near‐complete response. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median time to next therapy was 9.7 months, and median treatment‐free interval was 7.9 months. After 22.6 months’ median follow‐up, median PFS was 12.0 months and median OS was 36.1 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) were neuropathy not otherwise specified (19%), diarrhea NOS, and thrombocytopenia (each 17%); 230 (26%) patients discontinued bortezomib due to AEs. Of 689 (79%) patients without baseline peripheral neuropathy (PN), the rate of new‐onset any‐grade PN increased to 51% (12% grade 3/4) by cycle 8. Overall, 244 (28%) patients were hospitalized, 372 (43%) attended an outpatient visit, and 341 (39%) underwent a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure during bortezomib treatment. Conclusion: These prospective real‐world data demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of bortezomib‐based therapy for RRMM and confirm high response rates and long OS for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective analysis aimed to establish the overall cardiac safety profile of bortezomib using patient-level data from one phase 2 and seven phase 3 studies in previously untreated and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma ( MM). Seven clinically relevant primary [congestive heart failure ( CHF), arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease ( IHD), cardiac death] and secondary (hypertension, dyspnoea, oedema) cardiac endpoints were defined based on Med DRA v16.0 preferred terms. 2509 bortezomib-treated patients and 1445 patients in non-bortezomib-based control arms were included. The incidence of grade ≥3 CHF was 1·3-4·0% in studies in relapsed/refractory MM and 1·2-4·7% in previously untreated MM (2·0-7·6% all grades), with no significant differences between bortezomib- and non-bortezomib-based arms in comparative studies. Incidences of arrhythmias (1·3-5·9% grade ≥2; 0·6-4·1% grade ≥3), IHD (1·2-2·9% all grades; 0·4-2·7% grade ≥3) and cardiac death (0-1·4%) were low, with no differences between bortezomib-based and non-bortezomib-based arms. Higher rates of oedema (mostly grade 1/2) were seen in bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based arms in one study and a pooled transplant study analysis. Logistic regression analyses of comparative studies showed no impact on cardiac risk with bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based treatment. Bortezomib-based treatment was associated with low incidences of cardiac events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The China Continuation study was a separate regional expansion of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) following one to three prior therapies. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive ixazomib 4.0 mg or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15, plus lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-day cycles. Randomization was stratified according to number of prior therapies, disease stage, and prior proteasome inhibitor exposure. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). In total, 115 Chinese patients were randomized (57 ixazomib-Rd, 58 placebo-Rd). Results: At the preplanned final analysis for PFS, after median PFS follow-up of 7.4 and 6.9 months, respectively, PFS was improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (median 6.7 vs 4.0 months; HR 0.598; p = 0.035). At the preplanned final analysis of overall survival (OS), after median follow-up of 20.2 and 19.1 months, respectively, OS was improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (median 25.8 vs 15.8 months; HR 0.419; p = 0.001). On the ixazomib-Rd and placebo-Rd arms, respectively, 38 (67%) and 43 (74%) patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), 19 (33%) and 18 (31%) reported serious AEs, and 4 (7%) and 5 (9%) died on-study. The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (18%/7% vs 14%/5%), neutropenia (19%/5% vs 19%/2%), and anemia (12%/0 vs 26%/2%). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that PFS and OS were significantly improved with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, with limited additional toxicity, in patients with RRMM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This follow-up extension of a randomised phase II study assessed differences in long-term outcomes between bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone ( VTD) and VTD-cyclophosphamide ( VTDC) induction therapy in multiple myeloma. Newly diagnosed patients ( n = 98) were randomised 1:1 to intravenous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2; days 1, 4, 8, 11), thalidomide (100 mg; days 1-21), and dexamethasone (40 mg; days 1-4, 9-12), with/without cyclophosphamide (400 mg/m2; days 1, 8), for four 21-day cycles before stem-cell mobilisation/transplantation. After a median follow-up of 64·8 months, median time-to-next therapy was 51·8 and 47·9 months with VTD and VTDC, respectively. Type of subsequent therapy was similar in both arms. After adjusting for asymmetric censoring, median time to progression was not significantly different between VTD and VTDC [35·7 vs. 34·5 months; Hazard ratio ( HR) 1·26, 95% confidence interval: 0·76-2·09; P = 0·370]. Five-year survival was 69·1% and 65·3% with VTD and VTDC, respectively. When analysed by minimal residual disease ( MRD) status, overall survival was longer in MRD-negative versus MRD-positive patients with bone marrow-confirmed complete response ( HR 3·66, P = 0·0318). VTD induction followed by transplantation provides long-term disease control and, consistent with the primary analysis, there is no additional benefit from adding cyclophosphamide. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00531453). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A phase 1 study evaluated the QTc prolongation potential of siltuximab, a chimeric, anti-interleukin-6 mAb, in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), or low-volume MM. Methods: Patients with baseline QTcF and QTcB ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 100 ms, PR < 200 ms and no significant cardiac disease received siltuximab 15 mg/kg q3w, the highest dosage used in clinical studies, for 4 cycles. Twelve-lead ECGs obtained at multiple time points pre- and post-infusion at cycles 1 and 4 were evaluated by central cardiology laboratory. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper limit of least square (LS) mean 90 % CI for QTc change from baseline at each time point was <20 ms. Results: An effect on QTc prolongation was ruled out, as the upper bound of 90 % CI was <10 ms at each time point in 27 evaluable patients (13 MGUS, 13 SMM, 1 low-volume MM) with no differences between disease types. Maximum mean QTc increase from baseline occurred 3 h after cycle 1 infusion (QTcF = 3.2 [LS mean 90 % CI −0.01, 6.45] ms; QTcB = 2.7 [−0.69, 6.14] ms). At all other time points, mean QTcF and QTcB increase from baseline was ≤1.5 ms and upper bound 90 % CI was ≤5.1 ms. Twenty patients had mostly low-grade AEs, including nausea, fatigue (20 % each); thrombocytopenia, headache (each 13 %); dyspnea, leukopenia, neutropenia, paresthesia, abnormal hepatic function, URTI (each 10 %). Three MGUS patients achieved 50 % M-protein reduction. There was no association between siltuximab pharmacokinetics and QTc interval. Conclusions: Siltuximab did not affect the QTc interval. Overall safety was similar to other single-agent siltuximab studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interleukin-6 ( IL6) plays a central role in multiple myeloma pathogenesis and confers resistance to corticosteroid-induced apoptosis. We therefore evaluated the efficacy and safety of siltuximab, an anti- IL6 monoclonal antibody, alone and in combination with dexamethasone, for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had ≥2 prior lines of therapy, one of which had to be bortezomib-based. Fourteen initial patients received siltuximab alone, 10 of whom had dexamethasone added for suboptimal response; 39 subsequent patients were treated with concurrent siltuximab and dexamethasone. Patients received a median of four prior lines of therapy, 83% were relapsed and refractory, and 70% refractory to their last dexamethasone-containing regimen. Suppression of serum C-reactive protein levels, a surrogate marker of IL6 inhibition, was demonstrated. There were no responses to siltuximab but combination therapy yielded a partial (17%) + minimal (6%) response rate of 23%, with responses seen in dexamethasone-refractory disease. The median time to progression, progression-free survival and overall survival for combination therapy was 4·4, 3·7 and 20·4 months respectively. Haematological toxicity was common but manageable. Infections occurred in 57% of combination-treated patients, including ≥grade 3 infections in 18%. Further study of siltuximab in modern corticosteroid-containing myeloma regimens is warranted, with special attention to infection-related toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients and Methods Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN- 1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥ 18 (MMY- 3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021 ) or ≥ 1 (CAN- 1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. Results Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUClast): 155 vs. 151 ng⋅h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0,992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUClast: 195 vs. 241 ng⋅h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (Cmax) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to Cmax (tmax) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (Emax) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %⋅h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %⋅h in CAN-1004. Time to Emax was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. Conclusion Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Bortezomib, an antineoplastic agent with proteasome inhibitory activity, is extensively metabolized by the hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Drugs that affect these enzymes may therefore have an impact on the pharmacological profile of bortezomib. This study evaluated the effects of co-administration of a potent CYP3A4 inducer (rifampicin [rifampin]) and a weak CYP3A4 inducer (dexamethasone) on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of bortezomib. Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma received intravenous bortezomib 1.3mg/m², administered on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle, for 3 cycles. In stage 1, patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive bortezomib alone or in combination with oral rifampicin 600mg once daily on days 4-10 during cycle 3 only. If themean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of bortezomib was reduced by ≥30% during rifampicin co-administration, then stage 2 was initiated, in which patients received bortezomib with dexamethasone 40mg once daily on days 1-4 and days 9-12 during cycle 3 only. Blood samples were collected on days 11 through 14 of cycles 2 and 3 before and after bortezomib administration, at prespecified time points, for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (proteasome inhibition) assessments. Results: Twelve patients in the bortezomib-alone arm, six patients in the bortezomib plus rifampicin armand seven patients in the bortezomib plus dexamethasone arm were included in the pharmacokinetics-evaluable set. Rifampicin reduced the mean AUC from 0 to 72 hours (AUC72h) of bortezomib by approximately 45% (223 ng ⋅ h/mL in cycle 2 vs 123 ng ⋅ h/mL in cycle 3), while dexamethasone had no effect (mean AUC72h: 179 ng ⋅ h/mL in cycle 2 vs 170 ng ⋅ h/mL in cycle 3). Proteasome inhibition parameters in peripheral blood were unaffected by rifampicin or dexamethasone. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment arms and consistent with previous experience of bortezomib. Conclusions: In patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, co-administration of rifampicin decreased the exposure to bortezomib but did not affect the proteasome inhibition or safety profiles; co-administration of dexamethasone did not affect the exposure to bortezomib, proteasome inhibition or safety profiles. Concomitant administration of bortezomib with strong CYP3A4 inducers such as rifampicin is not recommended, as it may result in a reduction of the clinical effect, whereas concomitant administration of weak CYP3A4 inducers such as dexamethasone does not affect the pharmacological profile of bortezomib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone disease is a key presenting feature of myeloma. This post hoc analysis of the phase III VISTA trial of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs. MP in previously untreated myeloma patients assessed clinical bone disease events and changes in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), a marker for osteoblast activation, and serum Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), an inhibitor of osteoblast differentiation, during treatment. Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m, days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9 mg/m and prednisone 60 mg/m, days 1-4, cycles 1-9; N = 344) or MP alone ( N = 338). Rates of bisphosphonates use during treatment (73% vs. 82%), progression because of worsening bone disease (3% vs. 11%), and requirement for subsequent radiotherapy (3% vs. 8%) were lower with VMP vs. MP. Median maximum ALP increase was significantly higher with VMP vs. MP overall (49.7% vs. 30.3%, P = 0.029), and higher by response group (complete response [CR]: 68.7% vs. 43.9%; partial response [PR]: 41.5% vs. 31.2%). Greater maximum ALP increase was strongly associated with achievement of CR ( P ≤ 0.0001) and CR/PR ( P ≤ 0.01). Median DKK-1 decreased with VMP by 694.4 pg/mL and increased with MP by 1273.3 pg/mL from baseline to day 4 ( P = 0.0069). Available radiologic data revealed evidence of bone healing in 6/11 VMP-treated patients, who achieved best responses of three CR, one PR, and two stable disease. These results suggest a positive effect of bortezomib on bone metabolism and potentially bone healing in myeloma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Studies have shown that bortezomib retreatment is effective in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The observational, prospective electronic VELCADE® OBservational Study (eVOBS) study assessed bortezomib‐based therapies for patients with MM in everyday practice. Here, we report on those patients receiving retreatment with bortezomib. Methods: Consenting adults scheduled to receive bortezomib for MM were enrolled at 162 sites across Europe, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Turkey between 2006 and 2010. Retrospective data on prior therapies and prospective observational data after bortezomib initiation were captured electronically at baseline, after every bortezomib cycle, and every 12 weeks after discontinuation or progression. Investigator‐assessed responses and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: Ninety‐six of 873 patients enrolled to eVOBS received bortezomib as first retreatment for progressive disease during the prospective observation period. Median age was 62 years, 53% were male, and median number of prior therapies at retreatment was 4. Overall, 41% of patients initiated bortezomib retreatment in combination with dexamethasone, 16% in combination with lenalidomide, and 21% received monotherapy. Rate of partial response or better (≥PR) was 75% at initial bortezomib therapy, including 44% complete response (CR)/near CR (nCR); at retreatment, ≥PR rate was 46%, including 15% CR/nCR. Median progression‐free survival was 11.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.1‐12.7) from start of initial bortezomib treatment and 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.4‐7.2) from start of retreatment. Median overall survival from start of retreatment was 17.6 months (95% CI: 14.4‐23.5). Of the 96 patients retreated with bortezomib, 77% reported an AE. Peripheral neuropathy during bortezomib retreatment occurred in 49% of patients, including 10% grade 3/4. Conclusion: These data suggest that retreatment with bortezomib is a feasible option for patients with relapsed/refractory MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reply to letters written in response to the article "Bortezomib Plus Melphalan and Prednisolone for Initial Treatment of Multiple Myeloma" in the August 28, 2008 issue.

Certain cytogenetic abnormalities are known to adversely impact outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) compared with placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo-Rd). This preplanned analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd according to cytogenetic risk, as assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16); additionally, patients were assessed for 1q21 amplification. Of 722 randomized patients, 552 had cytogenetic results; 137 (25%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and 172 (32%) had 1q21 amplification alone. PFS was improved with IRd vs placebo-Rd in both high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.321-0.918; P = .021), with median PFS of 21.4 vs 9.7 months; in standard-risk patients, HR was 0.640 (95%CI, 0.462- 0.888; P = .007), with median PFS of 20.6 vs 15.6 months. This PFS benefit was consistent across subgroups with individual high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including patients with del(17p) (HR, 0.596; 95% CI, 0.286-1.243). PFS was also longer with IRd vs placebo-Rd in patients with 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.492-1.240), and in the "expanded high-risk" group, defined as those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.664; 95% CI, 0.474-0.928). IRd demonstrated substantial benefit compared with placebo-Rd in relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics, and improves the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Bortezomib (BTZ), a proteasome inhibitor, is an effective anti-neoplastic drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma. However, it can induce a reversible peripheral neuropathy that may lead to treatment discontinuation. The mechanism through which BTZ exerts toxic effects in peripheral neurons is not clear. Release of proinflammatory cytokines after nerve damage can induce neurodegeneration, but the effects of BTZ on cytokine expression in neurons are unknown, although BTZ modulates the expression of cytokines, such as TNF-α and IL-6, in tumor cells. The aim of this study was to evaluate the expression and the role of these cytokines on the course of BTZ induced neuropathy in mice. IL-6, TNF-α, TGF-β1 and IL-1β were up-regulated in dorsal root ganglia but TNF-α and IL-6 increased faster and higher. Then, we studied the potential neuroprotective effect of selective antibodies anti-TNF-α and anti-IL-6 on the evolution of the neuropathy. Treatment with anti-TNF-α but not with anti-IL-6 significantly prevented the decrease of sensory nerve action potentials amplitude and the loss of myelinated and unmyelinated fibers. We conclude that monoclonal antibodies directed against TNF-α may be a suitable neuroprotective therapy against the neurotoxicity induced by BTZ. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. Methods: We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression. Results: The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan–prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan–prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan–prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%). Conclusions: Bortezomib plus melphalan–prednisone was superior to melphalan–prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.) N Engl J Med 2008;359:906-17. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]