Search

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravesical KRP‐116D, 50% dimethyl sulfoxide solution compared with placebo, in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome patients. Methods: Japanese interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome patients with an O'Leary‐Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index score of ≥9, who exhibited the bladder‐centric phenotype of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome diagnosed by cystoscopy and bladder‐derived pain, were enrolled. Patients were allocated to receive either KRP‐116D (n = 49) or placebo (n = 47). The study drug was intravesically administered every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Results: For the primary endpoint, the change in the mean O'Leary‐Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index score from baseline to week 12 was −5.2 in the KRP‐116D group and −3.4 in the placebo group. The estimated difference between the KRP‐116D and placebo groups was −1.8 (95% confidence interval −3.3, −0.3; P = 0.0188). Statistically significant improvements for KRP‐116D were also observed in the secondary endpoints including O'Leary‐Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index score, micturition episodes/24 h, voided volume/micturition, maximum voided volume/micturition, numerical rating scale score for bladder pain, and global response assessment score. The adverse drug reactions were mild to moderate, and manageable. Conclusions: This first randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial shows that KRP‐116D improves symptoms, voiding parameters, and global response assessment, compared with placebo, and has a well‐tolerated safety profile in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome patients with the bladder‐centric phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and anti-tumor activity of enzalutamide were investigated in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in Japan through a multicenter phase I/II study. Methods: In phase I, patients with progressive metastatic CRPC received single, then multiple, ascending doses of enzalutamide 80, 160 or 240 mg/day. After assessment of tolerability at multiple doses of 160 mg/day for 4 weeks, post-docetaxel patients with CRPC and measurable disease were enrolled into phase II; receiving long-term administration of enzalutamide 160 mg/day. Results: Nine and 38 patients were enrolled in phase I and II, respectively. During phase I, enzalutamide was well tolerated in each cohort; PK parameters were similar to those of non-Japanese populations in other studies. By week 12, overall response rate was 5.3 % and clinical benefit rate was 47.4 %. Prostate-specific antigen response rate (≥50 % reduction from baseline) was 28.9 %. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >20 % of patients in phase II were decreased weight, decreased appetite and constipation. No seizures were observed. Conclusion: Enzalutamide at 160 mg/day was well tolerated, with PK and safety profiles similar to the non-Japanese population. Anti-tumor activity was observed in post-docetaxel Japanese patients with metastatic CRPC. Apparent differences in anti-tumor activity compared with the AFFIRM study (a phase III trial in a diverse population of patients with CRPC post-docetaxel) may be attributed to differences in treatment history prior to starting enzalutamide. Particularly in Japan, the influence of sequence in hormone treatments, including combined androgen blockade therapy, should be considered. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01284920. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Orteronel (TAK-700) is a non-steroidal, selective, reversible inhibitor of 17,20-lyase. We evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor effect of orteronel with or without prednisolone in Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: We conducted a phase 1 study in men with progressive and chemotherapy-naïve CRPC. Patients received orteronel orally at doses of 200-400 mg twice daily (BID) with or without oral prednisolone (5 mg BID). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed during Cycle 1 (28 days). Patients could continue study treatment until any of criteria for treatment discontinuation were met. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone therapy was continued in patients without prior orchidectomy. Results: Fifteen patients were enrolled and administered at least one dose of orteronel. No DLTs were reported during Cycle 1 in this study. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in all 15 patients. Most common AEs (>30 %) were hyperlipasemia (47 %), hyperamylasemia (40 %), and constipation (33 %). Acute pancreatitis (Grades 2 and 3) and pancreatitis (Grade 1) were complicated in three patients during the study. Dose-dependent increase in plasma orteronel concentrations was indicated over the 200-400 mg BID dose range. Prednisolone coadministered did not alter PK of orteronel. Serum testosterone was rapidly suppressed below the lower limit of quantification across all doses. Of 15 subjects, 13 achieved at least a 50 % reduction from baseline in prostate-specific antigen. Conclusions: Orteronel at doses up to 400 mg BID was tolerable in Japanese CRPC patients. The present results support further evaluation of orteronel with or without prednisolone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify the efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in relation to the prostate size in subjects with benign prostatic enlargement. Methods: The prospective study included 102 Japanese patients who underwent PVP. The efficacy and morbidity following PVP were compared in groups classified according to the baseline prostate size: prostates <40 cm3 (group 1, n = 25), 40 cm3 ≤ prostates <80 cm3 (group 2, n = 53), and 80 cm3 ≤ prostates (group 3, n = 24). Each subgroup was assessed for the treatment efficacy in terms of peak urinary flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, International Prostate Symptom Score, and quality-of-life score at 3, 6 and 12 months after PVP. Results: Except for a difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (group 2 vs 3) and peak urinary flow rate (groups 1 vs 3) at 6 months after PVP, no significant differences were observed among the groups in the level of improvement in each outcome variable. The efficacy of vaporization was significantly lower in group 1 ( P < 0.05, group 1 vs 2 or 3). The hemoglobin loss after PVP did not differ substantially among the groups. No statistically significant difference was found among the three groups regarding the total incidence of adverse events. Conclusions: PVP appears to be a safe and effective treatment for benign prostatic enlargement, irrespective of the prostate size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]