Published today in the NEJM.- P3 COMPARZ results. I begin to think that the P2 NIH study comparing Comet to Sutent may be an outdated venture. These non-inferior efficacy vs superior QOL results could sway the SOC favorably toward Pazo. Ernie...have any thoughts on this?
Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval,
Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.)"
Median PFS was 8.4 months for pazopanib vs 9.5 months for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.047) in the intention-to-treat population. “However, in the per-protocol population, median PFS was 8.4 months for pazopanib vs 10.2 months for sunitinib, which translates into a difference of almost 2 months in favor of sunitinib,” said Kwong.
In the overall trial population, OS was similar between the two treatment groups (p=0.275). Both drugs were associated with adverse events (AEs), with fatigue and hand-foot syndrome being more frequent with sunitinib. Rates of liver function abnormalities were however higher in patients treated with pazopanib. (Table 1) Moreover, a higher percentage of patients discontinued treatment due to AEs in the pazopanib group. (Table 2)