Page last updated: 2024-10-16

carbamates and Disease Exacerbation

carbamates has been researched along with Disease Exacerbation in 53 studies

Research Excerpts

ExcerptRelevanceReference
"The aim of this analysis of the effects of cholinergic therapy in dementia with Lewy bodies was to determine whether rivastigmine-induced benefits in attention and memory could be predicted by the presence of visual hallucinations."9.11Hallucinations predict attentional improvements with rivastigmine in dementia with lewy bodies. ( Ferrara, R; McKeith, IG; Perry, E; Wesnes, KA, 2004)
"Two new treatments have recently become standard care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) associated with cetuximab (anti-EGFR) in the second or third line of chemotherapy for BRAF V600E tumors, and pembrolizumab (an anti PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor) for tumors harboring microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and/or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)."8.12Upfront progression under pembrolizumab followed by a complete response after encorafenib and cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated and microsatellite unstable metastatic colorectal cancer patient: A case report. ( Broudin, C; Gallois, C; Garinet, S; Karoui, M; Sabouret, A; Taieb, J; Zaanan, A, 2022)
"Thus, a more rapid disease progression rate while receiving placebo treatment was predictive of a significantly stronger patient response to rivastigmine therapy."6.70Response of patients with Alzheimer disease to rivastigmine treatment is predicted by the rate of disease progression. ( Anand, R; Farlow, MR; Hake, A; Hartman, R; Messina, J; Veach, J, 2001)
"Apcin is a novel cell‑permeable molecule that blocks the interaction between APC/C and Cdc20."5.48Cdc20 inhibitor apcin inhibits the growth and invasion of osteosarcoma cells. ( Gao, Y; Shang, G; Wang, Y; Zhang, B, 2018)
" Here, we show that oral dosing with SNJ-1945, a novel water-soluble calpain inhibitor, reduces experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis clinical scores in vivo and has a two pronged effect via anti-inflammation and protection against neurodegeneration."5.40Effects of a novel orally administered calpain inhibitor SNJ-1945 on immunomodulation and neurodegeneration in a murine model of multiple sclerosis. ( Azuma, M; Banik, NL; Beeson, C; Haque, A; Inoue, J; Smith, A; Trager, N; Wallace Iv, G, 2014)
"The aim of this analysis of the effects of cholinergic therapy in dementia with Lewy bodies was to determine whether rivastigmine-induced benefits in attention and memory could be predicted by the presence of visual hallucinations."5.11Hallucinations predict attentional improvements with rivastigmine in dementia with lewy bodies. ( Ferrara, R; McKeith, IG; Perry, E; Wesnes, KA, 2004)
"Alzheimer's disease patients with hypertension or other vascular risk factors have been shown to receive greater symptomatic benefits than patients with strictly Alzheimer's disease following short-term treatment with rivastigmine, an inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase."5.10Potential long-term effects of rivastigmine on disease progression may be linked to drug effects on vascular changes in Alzheimer brains. ( Andrews, C; Erkinjuntti, T; Lane, R; Skoog, I, 2003)
"Two new treatments have recently become standard care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) associated with cetuximab (anti-EGFR) in the second or third line of chemotherapy for BRAF V600E tumors, and pembrolizumab (an anti PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor) for tumors harboring microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and/or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)."4.12Upfront progression under pembrolizumab followed by a complete response after encorafenib and cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated and microsatellite unstable metastatic colorectal cancer patient: A case report. ( Broudin, C; Gallois, C; Garinet, S; Karoui, M; Sabouret, A; Taieb, J; Zaanan, A, 2022)
" The standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C in China is Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (PR), which is associated with tolerability and efficacy issues."3.88Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients in China. ( Chang, F; Duan, CA; Jin, X; Lu, Y, 2018)
"Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were comparable across all treatment groups (n [%] patients; revefenacin 88 μg, 272 [74."2.90Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ( Barnes, CN; Crater, G; Dean, L; Donohue, JF; Haumann, B; Kerwin, E; Moran, EJ; Pendyala, S; Sethi, S, 2019)
"Thus, a more rapid disease progression rate while receiving placebo treatment was predictive of a significantly stronger patient response to rivastigmine therapy."2.70Response of patients with Alzheimer disease to rivastigmine treatment is predicted by the rate of disease progression. ( Anand, R; Farlow, MR; Hake, A; Hartman, R; Messina, J; Veach, J, 2001)
" Safety was monitored by physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory tests, ECG recording and by the assessment of adverse events."2.70An open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's disease in the community setting. ( Barcikowska, M; Bilikiewicz, A; Bilińska, M; Gabryelewicz, T; Ochudło, S; Opala, G; Paradowski, B; Parnowski, T; Pfeffer, A; Podemski, R; Puzyński, S; Sołtys, K; Łapin, J, 2002)
" Adverse events were predominantly gastrointestinal, of mild to moderate severity, transient, and occurred mainly during escalation of the dose."2.69Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer's disease: international randomised controlled trial. ( Agid, Y; Anand, R; Cicin-Sain, A; Dal-Bianco, P; Gauthier, S; Gharabawi, M; Hartman, R; Rösler, M; Stähelin, HB, 1999)
"In the absence of a cure for Alzheimer's disease (AD), treatment has focused on therapy to provide symptomatic benefits and to slow progression of the disease, so that patients can maintain their independence for as long as possible."2.41Do cholinesterase inhibitors slow progression of Alzheimer's disease? ( Farlow, MR, 2002)
"During the last years, treatment of Alzheimer's disease has improved following a better detection of this disease and, more importantly, following a better knowledge of its physiopathogeny."2.41[Anticholinesterase agents in Alzheimer's disease]. ( Sternon, J; Ventura, M, 2001)
"Once the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease has been made, a treatment plan must be developed."2.41Guidelines for managing Alzheimer's disease: Part II. Treatment. ( Cherry, D; Cummings, JL; Frank, JC; Hewett, L; Kemp, B; Kohatsu, ND; Mittman, B, 2002)
" Therefore, there is a need for effective and safe antiviral."1.72Efficacy and safety of the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir combination for the treatment of patients with early mild to moderate COVID-19. ( Adinolfi, LE; De Lucia Sposito, P; Fusco, R; Gaglione, P; Izzi, A; Lumino, P; Maggi, P; Marrone, A; Messina, V; Nevola, R; Rega, R; Rinaldi, L; Sasso, FC; Simeone, F, 2022)
"Hepatic disease progression and new hepatocellular carcinoma were diagnosed in 15 and 23 patients, respectively."1.48Long-term follow-up of clinical trial patients treated for chronic HCV infection with daclatasvir-based regimens. ( Brunetto, MR; Chayama, K; Gadano, A; Gerken, G; Ghesquiere, W; Heo, J; Kumada, H; Lawitz, EJ; Levin, J; Linaberry, M; Liu, Z; McPhee, F; Noviello, S; Peng, CY; Pol, S; Reddy, KR; Silva, M; Strasser, SI; Thuluvath, PJ; Toyota, J; Yang, R, 2018)
"Apcin is a novel cell‑permeable molecule that blocks the interaction between APC/C and Cdc20."1.48Cdc20 inhibitor apcin inhibits the growth and invasion of osteosarcoma cells. ( Gao, Y; Shang, G; Wang, Y; Zhang, B, 2018)
" Here, we show that oral dosing with SNJ-1945, a novel water-soluble calpain inhibitor, reduces experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis clinical scores in vivo and has a two pronged effect via anti-inflammation and protection against neurodegeneration."1.40Effects of a novel orally administered calpain inhibitor SNJ-1945 on immunomodulation and neurodegeneration in a murine model of multiple sclerosis. ( Azuma, M; Banik, NL; Beeson, C; Haque, A; Inoue, J; Smith, A; Trager, N; Wallace Iv, G, 2014)
"Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the consequence of both insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion."1.32Optimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus: fasting and postprandial glucose in context. ( Abrahamson, MJ, 2004)
"Homocitrulline was present in glomerular basement membrane (8/10), mesangium (8/10), tubular epithelium and cytoplasm (7/10) and Bowman's capsule (1/10) in patients with elevated BUN."1.31Carbamoylation of glomerular and tubular proteins in patients with kidney failure: a potential mechanism of ongoing renal damage. ( Gaber, L; Handorf, CR; Kraus, AP; Kraus, LM; Marti, HP, 2001)

Research

Studies (53)

TimeframeStudies, this research(%)All Research%
pre-19900 (0.00)18.7374
1990's2 (3.77)18.2507
2000's19 (35.85)29.6817
2010's26 (49.06)24.3611
2020's6 (11.32)2.80

Authors

AuthorsStudies
Gallois, C1
Taieb, J1
Sabouret, A1
Broudin, C1
Karoui, M1
Garinet, S1
Zaanan, A1
Messina, V1
Nevola, R1
Izzi, A1
De Lucia Sposito, P1
Marrone, A1
Rega, R1
Fusco, R1
Lumino, P1
Rinaldi, L1
Gaglione, P1
Simeone, F1
Sasso, FC1
Maggi, P1
Adinolfi, LE1
Chugh, Y1
Dhiman, RK1
Premkumar, M1
Prinja, S1
Singh Grover, G1
Bahuguna, P1
Kopetz, S1
Grothey, A1
Yaeger, R1
Van Cutsem, E1
Desai, J1
Yoshino, T1
Wasan, H1
Ciardiello, F1
Loupakis, F1
Hong, YS1
Steeghs, N1
Guren, TK1
Arkenau, HT1
Garcia-Alfonso, P1
Pfeiffer, P1
Orlov, S1
Lonardi, S1
Elez, E1
Kim, TW1
Schellens, JHM1
Guo, C1
Krishnan, A1
Dekervel, J1
Morris, V1
Calvo Ferrandiz, A1
Tarpgaard, LS1
Braun, M1
Gollerkeri, A1
Keir, C1
Maharry, K1
Pickard, M1
Christy-Bittel, J1
Anderson, L1
Sandor, V2
Tabernero, J1
Wiegand, J1
Buggisch, P1
Mauss, S1
Boeker, KHW1
Klinker, H1
Müller, T1
Günther, R1
Serfert, Y1
Manns, MP1
Zeuzem, S1
Berg, T1
Hinrichsen, H1
C-Registry, GH1
McLoughlin, EM1
Fadul, CE1
Patel, SH1
Hall, RD1
Gentzler, RD1
Zakaria, S1
El-Sisi, AE1
Chifotides, HT1
Bose, P1
Verstovsek, S1
Tholander, B1
Koliadi, A1
Botling, J1
Dahlstrand, H1
Von Heideman, A1
Ahlström, H1
Öberg, K1
Ullenhag, GJ1
Warburton, L1
Meniawy, TM1
Calapre, L1
Pereira, M1
McEvoy, A1
Ziman, M1
Gray, ES1
Millward, M1
Morisawa, N1
Koshima, Y1
Kuriyama, S1
Matsuyama, M1
Hayashi, N1
Satoh, JI1
Amemiya, M1
Yokoo, T1
Reddy, KR1
Pol, S1
Thuluvath, PJ1
Kumada, H1
Toyota, J1
Chayama, K1
Levin, J1
Lawitz, EJ1
Gadano, A1
Ghesquiere, W1
Gerken, G1
Brunetto, MR1
Peng, CY1
Silva, M1
Strasser, SI2
Heo, J1
McPhee, F1
Liu, Z1
Yang, R1
Linaberry, M1
Noviello, S1
McCaughan, GW1
Thwaites, PA1
Roberts, SK1
Mitchell, J1
Morales, B1
Mason, S1
Gow, P1
Wigg, A1
Tallis, C1
Jeffrey, G1
George, J1
Thompson, AJ1
Parker, FC1
Angus, PW1
Lu, Y1
Jin, X1
Duan, CA1
Chang, F1
Gao, Y1
Zhang, B1
Wang, Y1
Shang, G1
Dummer, R2
Ascierto, PA1
Gogas, HJ1
Arance, A1
Mandala, M1
Liszkay, G1
Garbe, C1
Schadendorf, D1
Krajsova, I1
Gutzmer, R1
Chiarion Sileni, V1
Dutriaux, C1
de Groot, JWB1
Yamazaki, N1
Loquai, C1
Moutouh-de Parseval, LA1
Pickard, MD1
Robert, C1
Flaherty, KT1
Habib, A1
Chokr, D1
Wan, J1
Hegde, P1
Mabire, M1
Siebert, M1
Ribeiro-Parenti, L1
Le Gall, M1
Lettéron, P1
Pilard, N1
Mansouri, A1
Brouillet, A1
Tardelli, M1
Weiss, E1
Le Faouder, P1
Guillou, H1
Cravatt, BF1
Moreau, R1
Trauner, M1
Lotersztajn, S1
Donohue, JF1
Kerwin, E1
Sethi, S1
Haumann, B1
Pendyala, S1
Dean, L1
Barnes, CN1
Moran, EJ1
Crater, G1
Paulitschke, V1
Eichhoff, O1
Gerner, C1
Paulitschke, P1
Bileck, A1
Mohr, T1
Cheng, PF1
Leitner, A1
Guenova, E1
Saulite, I1
Freiberger, SN1
Irmisch, A1
Knapp, B1
Zila, N1
Chatziisaak, TP1
Stephan, J1
Mangana, J1
Kunstfeld, R1
Pehamberger, H1
Aebersold, R1
Levesque, MP1
Konstan, MW1
Döring, G1
Heltshe, SL1
Lands, LC1
Hilliard, KA1
Koker, P1
Bhattacharya, S1
Staab, A1
Hamilton, A1
Trager, N1
Smith, A1
Wallace Iv, G1
Azuma, M1
Inoue, J2
Beeson, C1
Haque, A1
Banik, NL1
Najafzadeh, M1
Andersson, K1
Shrank, WH1
Krumme, AA1
Matlin, OS1
Brennan, T1
Avorn, J1
Choudhry, NK1
Verheul, MK3
Shiozawa, K1
Levarht, EW2
Huizinga, TW3
Toes, RE3
Trouw, LA3
Shiozawa, S1
Gimeno-Ballester, V1
Mar, J1
San Miguel, R1
Ajeganova, S2
Svensson, B2
van der Helm-van Mil, AH2
van Steenbergen, HW2
Forslind, K1
Hafström, I1
van Erp, SJ1
van der Woude, D1
Mallat, MJ1
Verspaget, HW1
Stolk, J1
van der Meulen-de Jong, AE1
Hiemstra, PS1
van Kooten, C1
Saab, S1
Virabhak, S1
Parisé, H1
Johnson, S1
Wang, A1
Misurski, D1
Gonzalez, YS1
Juday, T1
Knops, E1
Schübel, N1
Heger, E1
Neumann-Fraune, M1
Kaiser, R1
Inden, S1
Kalaghatgi, P1
Sierra, S1
Kanno, A1
Wakui, Y1
Miura, M1
Kobayashi, T2
Morosawa, T1
Kogure, T1
Kakazu, E1
Ninomiya, M1
Fujisaka, Y1
Umetsu, T1
Takai, S1
Nakamura, T1
Shimosegawa, T1
Sato, K1
Hosonuma, K1
Yamazaki, Y1
Takakusagi, S1
Horiguchi, N1
Kakizaki, S1
Kusano, M1
Ohnishi, H1
Okamoto, H1
Yamada, M1
Joki, N1
Iwasaki, M1
Farlow, MR2
Wobrock, T1
Retz-Junginger, P1
Retz, W1
Supprian, T1
Rösler, M2
Gabelli, C1
Borroni, B1
Pettenati, C1
Bordonali, T1
Akkawi, N1
Di Luca, M1
Padovani, A1
Rosso, R1
Di Biagio, A1
Ferrazin, A1
Bassetti, M1
Ciravegna, BW1
Bassetti, D1
Erkinjuntti, T1
Skoog, I1
Lane, R1
Andrews, C1
Marin, D1
Amaya, K1
Casciano, R1
Puder, KL1
Casciano, J1
Chang, S1
Snyder, EH1
Cheng, I1
Cuccia, AJ1
Abrahamson, MJ1
McKeith, IG1
Wesnes, KA1
Perry, E1
Ferrara, R1
Anand, R3
Cicin-Sain, A1
Gauthier, S1
Agid, Y1
Dal-Bianco, P1
Stähelin, HB1
Hartman, R3
Gharabawi, M1
Hauber, AB1
Gnanasakthy, A1
Mauskopf, JA1
Farlow, M1
Messina, J2
Veach, J2
Hake, A1
Coppedge, B1
Kraus, LM1
Gaber, L1
Handorf, CR1
Marti, HP1
Kraus, AP1
Ventura, M1
Sternon, J1
Bilikiewicz, A1
Opala, G1
Podemski, R1
Puzyński, S1
Łapin, J1
Sołtys, K1
Ochudło, S1
Barcikowska, M1
Pfeffer, A1
Bilińska, M1
Paradowski, B1
Parnowski, T1
Gabryelewicz, T1
Schmidt, R1
Lechner, A1
Petrovic, K1
Cummings, JL1
Frank, JC1
Cherry, D1
Kohatsu, ND1
Kemp, B1
Hewett, L1
Mittman, B1
Robert, P1
Hammer, SM1
Vaida, F1
Bennett, KK1
Holohan, MK1
Sheiner, L1
Eron, JJ1
Wheat, LJ1
Mitsuyasu, RT1
Gulick, RM1
Valentine, FT1
Aberg, JA1
Rogers, MD1
Karol, CN1
Saah, AJ1
Lewis, RH1
Bessen, LJ1
Brosgart, C1
DeGruttola, V1
Mellors, JW1

Clinical Trials (8)

Trial Overview

TrialPhaseEnrollmentStudy TypeStart DateStatus
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, 3-Arm Phase 3 Study of Encorafenib + Cetuximab Plus or Minus Binimetinib vs. Irinotecan/Cetuximab or Infusional 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)/Folinic Acid (FA)/Irinotecan (FOLFIRI)/Cetuximab With a Safety Lead-in of Encorafe[NCT02928224]Phase 3702 participants (Actual)Interventional2016-10-13Completed
Tempus CRC Surveillance Study: A Longitudinal Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Biomarker Profiling Study of Patients With Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Using Comprehensive Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)Assays[NCT05234177]160 participants (Anticipated)Observational2022-06-21Recruiting
Does Hepatitis C Management Protect Egyptian Population Against Severe Corona Virus Disease-2019 (COVID-19)?[NCT04757272]2,106 participants (Actual)Observational2020-05-01Completed
A Long-Term Follow-up Study of Subjects Who Participated in a Clinical Trial in Which Asunaprevir (BMS-650032) and/or Daclatasvir (BMS-790052) Was Administered for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C[NCT01492504]1,850 participants (Anticipated)Observational2012-02-07Completed
A 2-part Phase III Randomized, Open Label, Multicenter Study of LGX818 Plus MEK162 Versus Vemurafenib and LGX818 Monotherapy in Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutant Melanoma[NCT01909453]Phase 3921 participants (Actual)Interventional2013-12-13Active, not recruiting
Revefenacin in Acute Respiratory Insufficiency in COPD (RARICO)[NCT04315558]Phase 221 participants (Anticipated)Interventional2020-11-01Recruiting
A Phase 3, 52-week, Randomized, Active-Controlled Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of Nebulized TD-4208 in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease[NCT02518139]Phase 31,060 participants (Actual)Interventional2015-09-30Completed
A Phase II, Randomized Trial of Amprenavir as Part of Dual Protease Inhibitor Regimens (Placebo-Controlled) in Combination With Abacavir, Efavirenz, and Adefovir Dipivoxil Versus Amprenavir Alone in HIV-Infected Subjects With Prior Exposure to Approved Pr[NCT00000912]Phase 2475 participants InterventionalCompleted
[information is prepared from clinicaltrials.gov, extracted Sep-2024]

Trial Outcomes

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm6.06
Phase 3:Control ArmNA

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm5.70
Phase 3:Control Arm5.75

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.80
Phase 3:Control ArmNA

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented disease progression (PD) or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.80
Phase 3:Control Arm5.75

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm by BICR

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.80
Phase 3:Doublet Arm6.06

(Phase 3) Comparison of Duration of Response (DOR) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm by Investigator

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.80
Phase 3:Doublet Arm5.70

(Phase 3) Comparison of Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm20.4
Phase 3:Control Arm1.9

(Phase 3) Comparison of Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm15.9
Phase 3:Control Arm3.7

(Phase 3) Comparison of Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm26.1
Phase 3:Control Arm3.7

(Phase 3) Comparison of Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per BICR

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm26.1
Phase 3: Doublet Arm20.4

(Phase 3) Comparison of Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per Investigator

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm26.1
Phase 3: Doublet Arm15.9

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm4.21
Phase 3:Control Arm1.51

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm4.27
Phase 3:Control Arm1.58

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.30
Phase 3:Control Arm1.51

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-free Survival (PFS) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.47
Phase 3:Control Arm1.58

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per BICR

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.30
Phase 3: Doublet Arm4.21

(Phase 3) Comparison of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per Investigator

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm4.47
Phase 3: Doublet Arm4.27

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm1.48
Phase 3:Control Arm1.45

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Doublet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks for doublet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm1.48
Phase 3:Control Arm2.63

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per BICR

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm1.43
Phase 3:Control Arm1.45

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm Per Investigator

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm1.48
Phase 3:Control Arm2.63

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per BICR

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm1.43
Phase 3:Doublet Arm1.48

(Phase 3) Comparison of Time to Response in Triplet Arm vs Doublet Arm Per Investigator

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 268 weeks for doublet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm1.48
Phase 3:Doublet Arm1.48

(Phase 3) Evaluation of the Model-Based Clearance (CL) for Cetuximab

The reported cross-arm CL/F value is a fixed-effect parameter determined from a population PK analysis. The analysis included pooled data from participants enrolled in multiple studies including those who were not enrolled in this study. The NCTID include: NCT01719380, NCT01543698, and NCT01436656. An additional study ARRAY-162-105 is not required to register. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: 2 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 1, Predose and 2 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionLiter/hour (Geometric Mean)
Pharmacokinetic Population of Encorafenib0.0154

(Phase 3) Evaluation of the Model-Based Oral Clearance (CL/F) for Binimetinib

The reported cross-arm CL/F value is a fixed-effect parameter determined from a population PK analysis. The analysis included pooled data from participants enrolled in multiple studies including those who were not enrolled in this study. The NCTID include: NCT01719380, NCT01543698, and NCT01436656. An additional study ARRAY-162-105 is not required to register. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: 2 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 1, Predose and 2 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionLiter/hour (Geometric Mean)
Pharmacokinetic Population of Encorafenib19.0

(Phase 3) Evaluation of the Model-Based Oral Clearance (CL/F) for Encorafenib

The reported cross-arm CL/F value is a fixed-effect parameter determined from a population PK analysis. The analysis included pooled data from participants enrolled in multiple studies including those who were not enrolled in this study. The NCTID include: NCT01719380, NCT01543698, and NCT01436656. An additional study ARRAY-162-105 is not required to register. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: 2 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 1, Predose and 2 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycle 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionLiter/hour (Geometric Mean)
Pharmacokinetic Population of Encorafenib16.4

(Phase 3) Objective Response Rate (ORR) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) Per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), v1.1 of Triplet Arm vs. Control Arm

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 millimeter [mm] short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of Phase 3, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm26.1
Phase 3:Control Arm1.9

(Phase 3) Overall Survival (OS) in Doublet Arm vs. Control Arm

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From randomization to death due to any cause until 204 deaths were observed (maximum treatment exposure of 89.7 weeks for doublet arm and 52.4 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Doublet Arm9.40
Phase 3:Control Arm5.88

(Phase 3) Overall Survival (OS) in Triplet Arm vs. Doublet Arm

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From randomization to death due to any cause until 204 deaths were observed (maximum treatment exposure of 89.7 weeks for doublet arm and 89.1 weeks for triplet arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm9.82
Phase 3: Doublet Arm9.40

(Phase 3) Overall Survival (OS) of Triplet Arm vs. Control Arm - Final Analysis

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From randomization to death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks for triplet arm and 108 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm9.82
Phase 3:Control Arm5.88

(Phase 3) Overall Survival (OS) of Triplet Arm vs. Control Arm - Interim Analysis

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From randomization to death due to any cause until 204 deaths were observed (maximum treatment exposure of 89.1 weeks for triplet arm and 52.4 weeks for control arm)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm9.03
Phase 3: Control Arm5.42

(Safety Lead-in) Duration of Response (DOR) by BICR

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in8.15

(Safety Lead-in) Duration of Response (DOR) by Investigator

DOR was defined as the time from first radiographic evidence of response to the earliest documented disease progression (PD) or death due to underlying disease. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From time of response to the earliest documented PD or death due to underlying disease (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in6.47

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Steady-State Concentration Measured Just Before the Next Dose of Study Drug (Ctrough) for a Metabolite of Binimetinib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Combined Safety Lead-in3.41

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Steady-State Concentration Measured Just Before the Next Dose of Study Drug (Ctrough) for Binimetinib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Combined Safety Lead-in55.3

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Steady-State Concentration Measured Just Before the Next Dose of Study Drug (Ctrough) for Cetuximab

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Combined Safety Lead-in55400

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Steady-State Concentration Measured Just Before the Next Dose of Study Drug (Ctrough) for Encorafenib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Combined Safety Lead-in18.9

(Safety Lead-in) Incidence of Dose Interruptions, Dose Modifications and Discontinuations Due to Adverse Events (AEs) - Interim Analysis

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant or clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of study drug, whether or not considered related to the study drug. Number of participants with dose interruptions, dose modifications and dose discontinuations due to AEs were reported in this outcome measure. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of safety lead-in, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Combined Safety Lead-in26

(Safety Lead-in) Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant or clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of study drug, whether or not considered related to the study drug. Number of participants reporting AEs were reported in this outcome measure. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Duration of safety lead-in, approximately 6 months (up to 28 days per cycle)

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Combined Safety Lead-in37

(Safety Lead-in) Number of Participants With Dose-Limiting Toxicities (DLTs)

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 (up to 28 days)

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Combined Safety Lead-in (CSLI)5

(Safety Lead-in) Objective Response Rate (ORR) by BICR

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Combined Safety Lead-in41.7

(Safety Lead-in) Objective Response Rate (ORR) by Investigator

ORR per RECIST, v1.1, was defined as the percentage of participants achieving an overall best response of CR or PR, where CR: disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker level, all lymph nodes must be non-pathological in size (<10 mm short axis), and PR: at least 30% decrease in sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum diameters persistence of one or more non-target lesions and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionPercentage of participants (Number)
Combined Safety Lead-in52.8

(Safety Lead-in) Progression-Free Survival (PFS) by BICR

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in5.59

(Safety Lead-in) Progression-Free Survival (PFS) by Investigator

PFS was defined as the time from first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause. PD: at least a 20% increase (including an absolute increase of at least 5 mm) in the sum of diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions and/or appearance of 1 or more new lesions were evaluated. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to the earliest documented PD or death due to any cause (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in8.08

(Safety Lead-in) Time to Response by BICR

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in1.45

(Safety Lead-in) Time to Response by Investigator

Time to response was defined as the time from first dose to first radiographic evidence of response. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From first dose to first radiographic evidence of response (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionMonths (Median)
Combined Safety Lead-in1.45

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shifts in Urinalysis Laboratory Parameters

Clinically notable shifts was defined as worsening by at least 2 grades or to >= Grade 3 based on CTCAE version 4.03 where Grade 1: mild, Grade 2: moderate, Grade 3: severe, Grade 4: life threatening and Grade 5: death. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Phase 3: Triplet Arm8
Phase 3: Doublet Arm8
Phase 3: Control Arm5

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Participants (QLQ-C30) Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire consisted of 30 questions generating 5 functional scores (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, & social); a global health (GH) status/global quality of life scale score; 3 symptom scale scores (fatigue, pain, & nausea & vomiting); & 6 standalone one-item scores that capture additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, & diarrhea) & perceived financial burden. All items were graded by severity experienced during previous week & used 4-point-scale (1: not at all, 2: a little, 3: quite a bit, 4: very much). The scores were converted to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scale ranging from 0-100. Higher scores indicating higher response levels (i.e., higher functioning, higher symptom severity). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline, Cycle(C)1 Day(D)1 , C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Control Arm62.8-3.4-1.9-0.21.4-2.2-4.51.70.0-4.82.133.34.20.0-15.5-24.6

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Participants (QLQ-C30) Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire consisted of 30 questions generating 5 functional scores (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, & social); a global health (GH) status/global quality of life scale score; 3 symptom scale scores (fatigue, pain, & nausea & vomiting); & 6 standalone one-item scores that capture additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, & diarrhea) & perceived financial burden. All items were graded by severity experienced during previous week & used 4-point-scale (1: not at all, 2: a little, 3: quite a bit, 4: very much). The scores were converted to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scale ranging from 0-100. Higher scores indicating higher response levels (i.e., higher functioning, higher symptom severity). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline, Cycle(C)1 Day(D)1 , C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3: Triplet Arm62.8-2.4-1.60.70.2-1.1-4.0-2.5-2.6-5.8-3.3-5.20.00.0-1.23.6-16.7-27.8-16.70.0-250.0-14.1-17.4

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Participants (QLQ-C30) Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire consisted of 30 questions generating 5 functional scores (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, & social); a global health (GH) status/global quality of life scale score; 3 symptom scale scores (fatigue, pain, & nausea & vomiting); & 6 standalone one-item scores that capture additional symptoms (dyspnea, appetite loss, sleep disturbance, constipation, & diarrhea) & perceived financial burden. All items were graded by severity experienced during previous week & used 4-point-scale (1: not at all, 2: a little, 3: quite a bit, 4: very much). The scores were converted to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scale ranging from 0-100. Higher scores indicating higher response levels (i.e., higher functioning, higher symptom severity). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline, Cycle(C)1 Day(D)1 , C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 22 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Doublet Arm60.7-4.33.83.54.24.35.64.34.2-5.6-2.83.9-4.6-3.2-6.02.8-5.6-2.8-8.3-8.3-8-16.7-16.70.0-13.1-10.4

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the EuroQol-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (EQ-5D-5L VAS) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EQ-5D-5L contains 1 item for each of 5 dimensions of health-related QoL (i.e., mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression). Response options for each item varied from having no problems to moderate problems or extreme problems. The EQ-5D-5L (v4.0) is a standardized measure of health utility that provides a single index value for one's health status. The EQ-5D-5L is frequently used for economic evaluations of health care and has been recognized as a valid and reliable instrument for this purpose. The EQ visual analog scale (VAS) is a score that is directly reported by the participant and ranges from 0 to 100 (higher is better quality health). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Control Arm68.3-2.1-2.4-1.4-0.42.5-3.62.4-2.8-8.1-1.84.01.5-2.0-12.7-11.0

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the EuroQol-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (EQ-5D-5L VAS) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EQ-5D-5L contains 1 item for each of 5 dimensions of health-related QoL (i.e., mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression). Response options for each item varied from having no problems to moderate problems or extreme problems. The EQ-5D-5L (v4.0) is a standardized measure of health utility that provides a single index value for one's health status. The EQ-5D-5L is frequently used for economic evaluations of health care and has been recognized as a valid and reliable instrument for this purpose. The EQ visual analog scale (VAS) is a score that is directly reported by the participant and ranges from 0 to 100 (higher is better quality health). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3: Triplet Arm69.00.81.43.04.03.31.31.44.10.30.20.2-4.0-3.0-4.0-3.4-10.4-18.37.08.08.08.0-8.5-11.1

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the EuroQol-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (EQ-5D-5L VAS) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

The EQ-5D-5L contains 1 item for each of 5 dimensions of health-related QoL (i.e., mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression). Response options for each item varied from having no problems to moderate problems or extreme problems. The EQ-5D-5L (v4.0) is a standardized measure of health utility that provides a single index value for one's health status. The EQ-5D-5L is frequently used for economic evaluations of health care and has been recognized as a valid and reliable instrument for this purpose. The EQ visual analog scale (VAS) is a score that is directly reported by the participant and ranges from 0 to 100 (higher is better quality health). (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 22 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Doublet Arm66.5-0.91.94.25.65.12.93.62.0-4.0-8.1-0.1-0.6-4.1-0.44.23.31.7-3.3-5.52.0-5.0-5.0-5.0-8.0-5.9

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colon Cancer (FACT-C) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

FACT-C= Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), which assessed HRQoL of cancer participants & participants with other chronic illnesses. It consists of total 36 items (27 items of general version of FACT-C and disease-specific subscale containing 9 CRC-specific items), summarized to 5 subscales: physical well-being (7 items), functional well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items); all 3 subscales range:0-28, emotional well-being (6 items) range: 0-24, colorectal cancer subscale (9 items) range: 0-36; higher subscale score= better QoL. All single-item measures range: 0= 'Not at all' to 4= 'Very much'. Table summarizes functional well-being subscale, individual questions are linearly scaled & combined to form functional well-being subscale score (range 0-28). High score represents better QoL. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Control Arm16.8-1.4-0.9-0.7-1.8-1.6-1.9-0.5-2.1-2.60.5-4.5-4.5-8.0-3.1-4.2

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colon Cancer (FACT-C) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

FACT-C= Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), which assessed HRQoL of cancer participants & participants with other chronic illnesses. It consists of total 36 items (27 items of general version of FACT-C and disease-specific subscale containing 9 CRC-specific items), summarized to 5 subscales: physical well-being (7 items), functional well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items); all 3 subscales range:0-28, emotional well-being (6 items) range: 0-24, colorectal cancer subscale (9 items) range: 0-36; higher subscale score= better QoL. All single-item measures range: 0= 'Not at all' to 4= 'Very much'. Table summarizes functional well-being subscale, individual questions are linearly scaled & combined to form functional well-being subscale score (range 0-28). High score represents better QoL. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3: Triplet Arm16.3-0.2-0.3-0.20.40.70.70.50.9-1.9-1.7-1.5-1.5-2.0-2.4-2.3-4.2-6.7-5.0-7.0-6.0-9.0-2.4-3.5

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colon Cancer (FACT-C) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

FACT-C= Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), which assessed HRQoL of cancer participants & participants with other chronic illnesses. It consists of total 36 items (27 items of general version of FACT-C and disease-specific subscale containing 9 CRC-specific items), summarized to 5 subscales: physical well-being (7 items), functional well-being (7 items), social/family well-being (7 items); all 3 subscales range:0-28, emotional well-being (6 items) range: 0-24, colorectal cancer subscale (9 items) range: 0-36; higher subscale score= better QoL. All single-item measures range: 0= 'Not at all' to 4= 'Very much'. Table summarizes functional well-being subscale, individual questions are linearly scaled & combined to form functional well-being subscale score (range 0-28). High score represents better QoL. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 22 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Doublet Arm16.2-0.9-0.6-0.2-0.1-0.20.6-0.10.2-0.8-1.3-0.5-1.1-3.2-4.0-1.5-0.7-0.7-3.0-6.0-5.0-5.0-12.0-9.0-2.2-0.8

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Participant Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

"The PGIC is a measure of participant's perceptions of change in their symptoms over time that can be used as an anchoring method to determine the minimal clinically important difference for other participant reported outcome (PROs). For this assessment, participants answered the following question: Since starting treatment, my colorectal cancer symptoms are: (1) very much improved, (2) much improved, (3) minimally improved, (4) no change, (5) minimally worse, (6) much worse or (7) very much worse." (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Control Arm3.90.0-0.3-0.5-0.5-0.7-0.8-1.1-1.0-1.0-0.30.0-0.5-1.00.40.7

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Participant Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

"The PGIC is a measure of participant's perceptions of change in their symptoms over time that can be used as an anchoring method to determine the minimal clinically important difference for other participant reported outcome (PROs). For this assessment, participants answered the following question: Since starting treatment, my colorectal cancer symptoms are: (1) very much improved, (2) much improved, (3) minimally improved, (4) no change, (5) minimally worse, (6) much worse or (7) very much worse." (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3: Triplet Arm3.8-0.1-0.7-0.9-0.9-0.9-0.8-1.1-1.2-0.8-0.5-0.9-0.9-1.3-1.1-1.2-2.0-1.3-2.0-3.0-3.0-3.00.3-0.1

(Phase 3) Change From Baseline in the Participant Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in Triplet Arm vs Control Arm, Doublet Arm vs Control, and Triplet vs Doublet

"The PGIC is a measure of participant's perceptions of change in their symptoms over time that can be used as an anchoring method to determine the minimal clinically important difference for other participant reported outcome (PROs). For this assessment, participants answered the following question: Since starting treatment, my colorectal cancer symptoms are: (1) very much improved, (2) much improved, (3) minimally improved, (4) no change, (5) minimally worse, (6) much worse or (7) very much worse." (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Baseline,Cycle (C)1 Day (D)1, C2 D1, C3 D1, C4 D1, C5 D1, C6 D1, C7 D1, C8 D1, C9 D1, C10 D1, C11 D1, C12 D1, C13 D1, C14 D1, C15 D1, C16 D1, C17 D1, C18 D1, C19 D1, C20 D1, C21 D1, C22 D1, C23 D1, End of Treatment, 30 Day Follow Up(each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionUnits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 1 Day 1Change at Cycle 2 Day 1Change at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 4 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 6 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 8 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 10 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 12 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 14 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 16 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 18 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 20 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 22 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at End of TreatmentChange at 30 Day Follow Up
Phase 3:Doublet Arm3.80.1-0.8-1.2-1.1-1.1-1.2-1.0-1.1-0.9-0.6-1.1-0.8-0.9-1.5-1.6-0.7-1.0-1.0-0.5-2.0-2.0-2.0-2.00.10.5

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve From Zero to the Last Measurable Time Point (AUClast) for Binimetinib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter *hour (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in19601540

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve From Zero to the Last Measurable Time Point (AUClast) for Cetuximab

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter *hour (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in841000970000

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve From Zero to the Last Measurable Time Point (AUClast) for Encorafenib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter *hour (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in113006660

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Area Under the Concentration-time Curve From Zero to the Last Measurable Time Point (AUClast) for Metabolite of Binimetinib (AR00426032)

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter *hour (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in20670.0

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Maximum Concentration (Cmax) for Binimetinib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in654524

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Maximum Concentration (Cmax) for Cetuximab

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in195000199000

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Maximum Concentration (Cmax) for Encorafenib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in33602490

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Maximum Concentration (Cmax) for Metabolite of Binimetinib (AR00426032)

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionNanogram/milliliter (Geometric Mean)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in59.920.5

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Time of Maximum Observed Concentration (Tmax) for Binimetinib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionHours (Median)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in1.981.04

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Time of Maximum Observed Concentration (Tmax) for Cetuximab

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionHours (Median)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in3.773.05

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Time of Maximum Observed Concentration (Tmax) for Encorafenib

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionHours (Median)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in2.002.00

(Safety Lead-in) Evaluation of the Time of Maximum Observed Concentration (Tmax) for Metabolite of Binimetinib (AR00426032)

(NCT02928224)
Timeframe: Predose and 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours post-dose on Day 1 of Cycles 1 and 2 (each cycle of 28 days)

InterventionHours (Median)
Cycle 1Cycle 2
Combined Safety Lead-in2.001.58

(Safety Lead-in) Incidence of Dose Interruptions, Dose Modifications and Discontinuations Due to Adverse Events (AEs) - Final Analysis

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant or clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of study drug, whether or not considered related to the study drug. Number of participants according to incidence of dose interruptions, dose modifications and dose discontinuations due to AEs were reported in this outcome measure. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (maximum treatment exposure of 280 weeks)

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Dose interruptionsDose modificationsDiscontinuation due to AEs
Combined Safety Lead-in30168

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shifts in Hematology and Coagulation Laboratory Parameters

Clinically notable shifts was defined as worsening by at least 2 grades or to more than or equal to (>=) Grade 3 based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 where Grade 1: mild, Grade 2: moderate, Grade 3: severe, Grade 4: life threatening and Grade 5: death. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time - HyperHemoglobin - HyperHemoglobin - HypoLeukocytes - HyperLeukocytes - HypoLymphocytes - HyperLymphocytes - HypoNeutrophils - HypoPlatelets - HypoProthrombin Intl. Normalized Ratio - Hyper
Phase 3: Doublet Arm903009347852
Phase 3: Triplet Arm9097021225413
Phase 3:Control Arm40170514576542

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shifts in Serum Chemistry Laboratory Parameters

Clinically notable shifts was defined as worsening by at least 2 grades or to >= Grade 3 based on CTCAE version 4.03 where Grade 1: mild, Grade 2: moderate, Grade 3: severe, Grade 4: life threatening and Grade 5: death. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Alanine Aminotransferase - HyperAlbumin - HypoAlkaline Phosphatase - HyperAspartate Aminotransferase - HyperBilirubin - HyperCalcium - HyperCalcium - HypoCreatine Kinase - HyperCreatinine - HyperGlucose - HyperGlucose - HypoMagnesium - HyperMagnesium - HypoPotassium - HyperPotassium - HypoSodium - HyperSodium - HypoTroponin I - HyperUrate - Hyper
Phase 3: Control Arm10171891207364129592501
Phase 3: Doublet Arm7161271308111160141071402
Phase 3: Triplet Arm115013111111518458401114511004

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Clinically Notable Electrocardiogram (ECG) Values

Newly occurring clinically notable changes was defined as participants not meeting the criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. The criterion included: heart rate- decrease from baseline > 25% and to a value < 50 and increase from baseline > 25% and to a value > 100. QT interval- new > 450 (millisecond) msec, new > 480 msec, new > 500 msec, increase from baseline > 30 msec and increase from baseline > 60 msec. QTcF- new > 450 msec, new > 480 msec, new > 500 msec, increase from baseline > 30 msec and increase from baseline > 60 msec. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Heart Rate - Decrease from baseline > 25% and to a value < 50Heart Rate - Increase from baseline > 25% and to a value > 100QT Interval - New > 450 millisecond (msec)QT Interval - New > 480 msecQT Interval - New > 500 msecQT Interval - increase from baseline > 30 msecQT Interval - increase from baseline > 60 msecQTcF - New > 450 msecQTcF - New > 480 msecQTcF - New > 500 msecQTcF - increase from baseline > 30 msecQTcF - increase from baseline > 60 msec
Phase 3: Control Arm02872032102352245
Phase 3: Doublet Arm42430759921511867520
Phase 3: Triplet Arm1271743972239915912

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Clinically Notable Vital Sign Abnormalities

Newly occurring clinically notable changes was defined as participants not meeting the criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. The criterion included: low/high systolic blood pressure (SBP): <= 90 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) with decrease from baseline of >= 20mmHg or >= 160mmHg with increase from baseline of >= 20mmHg, low or high diastolic blood pressure (DBP): <= 50mmHg with decrease from baseline of >= 15mmHg or >= 100mmHg with increase from baseline of >= 15mmHg, low or high pulse: <= 50 beats/min with decrease from baseline of >= 15 beats/min or >= 120 beats/min with increase from baseline of >= 15 beats/min, low or high temperature: <= 36 degree Celsius (deg C) or >= 37.5 deg C. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Diastolic Blood Pressure - HighDiastolic Blood Pressure - LowPulse Rate - HighPulse Rate - LowSystolic Blood Pressure - HighSystolic Blood Pressure - LowTemperature - HighTemperature - Low
Phase 3: Control Arm752035102555
Phase 3: Doublet Arm62714413282384
Phase 3: Triplet Arm82123319373393

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Shift in Visual Acuity Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (LogMAR) Score

Visual acuity was measured using the Snellen visual acuity conversion chart. This was determined by establishing the smallest optotypes that could be identified correctly by the participant at a given observation distance. Snellen visual acuity was reported as a Snellen fraction (m/M) in which the numerator (m) indicated the test distance and the denominator (M) indicated the distance at which the gap of the equivalent Landolt ring subtends 1 minute of arc. The LogMAR score was calculated as - log(m/M). The maximum increase in score of <= 0, 0 to < 0.1, 0.1 to < 0.2, 0.2 to < 0.3 and >=0.3 relative to baseline in LogMAR were reported in this endpoint. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline <=0 to >0-<0.1Baseline <=0 to 0.1-<0.2Baseline <=0 to 0.2-<0.3Baseline <=0 to >=0.3Baseline <=0 to missing scoreBaseline >0-<0.1 to <=0Baseline >0-<0.1 to 0.1-<0.2Baseline >0-<0.1 to 0.2-<0.3Baseline >0-<0.1 to >=0.3Baseline >0-<0.1 to missing scoreBaseline 0.1-<0.2 to <=0Baseline 0.1-<0.2 to >0-<0.1Baseline 0.2-<0.3 to <=0Baseline 0.2-<0.3 to >0-<0.1Baseline 0.2-<0.3 to 0.1-<0.2Baseline 0.2-<0.3 to missing scoreBaseline >=0.3 to <=0Baseline >=0.3 to >0-<0.1Baseline >=0.3 to 0.1-<0.2Baseline >=0.3 to 0.2-<0.3Baseline >=0.3 to missing scoreBaseline 0.1-<0.2 to 0.2-<0.3Baseline 0.1-<0.2 to missing score
Phase 3: Control Arm000012900003000000500001307
Phase 3: Doublet Arm83018662102510001420101939
Phase 3: Triplet Arm33154691774335113319412100

Phase 3: Number of Participants With Shifts in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) From Baseline to Maximum Grade On-treatment

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) abnormalities were defined according to CTCAE version 4.03 where Grade 0: Non-missing value below Grade 2, Grade 2: LVEF between 40% and 50% or absolute change from baseline between -10% and < -20%, Grade 3: LVEF between 20% and 39% or absolute change from baseline <= -20%, Grade 4: LVEF lower than 20%. Categories with at least 1 non-zero data values showing any shift in Grade from baseline to 1 day after dose 1 (post-baseline) were reported. Participants whose grade category was unchanged (e.g. Grade 0 to Grade 0) were not reported. (NCT02928224)
Timeframe: From start of study treatment until 30 days post last dose of study treatment (for triplet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 277.4 weeks; for doublet arm: maximum treatment exposure of 268 weeks; for Control arm: maximum treatment exposure of 108 weeks)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline Grade 0 to Grade 2 post baselineBaseline Grade 0 to Grade 3 post baselineBaseline Grade 0 to missing gradeBaseline Grade 2 to missing gradeBaseline missing grade to Grade 0 post baseline
Phase 3: Control Arm0018620
Phase 3: Doublet Arm0120530
Phase 3: Triplet Arm2711701

Part 1 and Part 2: Disease Control Rate (DCR)

DCR was calculated as the percentage of participants with a best overall response (BOR) of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD). CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. Two sets of DCR were considered, one for confirmed and one for unconfirmed responses. Results are reported for confirmed and unconfirmed responses combined. SD: Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR or CR nor an increase in lesions which would qualify for PD. DCR was based on central review. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)92.2
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg84.0
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID81.7
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)90.7
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg79.1
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg82.5

Part 1 and Part 2: Duration of Response (DOR)

DOR was calculated, as the time from the date of first documented response (CR or PR) to the first documented progression or death due to underlying cancer. DOR was estimated for responders (i.e. participants achieving at least once CR or PR) only using a Kaplan-Meier method. CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. If a participant with a CR or PR had no progression or death due to underlying disease, the participant was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. Results are based on confirmed BIRC response. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)16.6
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg15.2
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID12.3
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)12.7
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg7.5
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg12.9

Part 1 and Part 2: Objective Response Rate (ORR)

ORR, calculated as the percentage of participants with a best overall response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to < 10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. Results are reported for confirmed BIRC response. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)63.0
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg50.5
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID40.3
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)65.9
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg50.0
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg50.4

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 1 Point Deterioration in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS)

ECOG: participant's performance status was measured on a 6-point scale: 0= fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1= restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light and sedentary nature; 2= ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50 percent (%) of waking hours; 3= capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair >50% of waking hours; 4= completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed/chair: 5= dead. Definitive deterioration was defined as death due to any cause or decrease in ECOG PS by at least one category from baseline score with no subsequent improvement. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)NA
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg26.7
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID18.2
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)NA
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg10.2
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg19.2

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 10% Deterioration in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale

FACT-M:melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs,symptoms,physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items,not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores.Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represent better quality of life.Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. Time to definitive 10% deterioration:time from date of randomization to date of event with at least 10% relative to baseline worsening of corresponding scale score with no later improvement or death due to any cause. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Date of randomization to date of event or death due to any cause, which ever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)NA
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg30.5
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID22.1
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)NA
Part 2: LGX818 300 mgNA
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg20.5

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 10% Deterioration in the Global Health Status Score of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)

"EORTC QLQ-C30 is 30 item questionnaire composed of 5 multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, social functioning), 3 multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), global health/quality of life (QOL) subscale and 6 single items assessing other cancer related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite, diarrhea, constipation and financial impact of cancer). It employed twenty-eight 4 point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7 point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Global health status scale score ranged from 0 to 100. Higher score represented better level of functioning. Time to definitive 10% deterioration: time from date of randomization to date of event with at least 10% relative to baseline worsening of corresponding scale score with no later improvement or death due to any cause." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Date of randomization to date of event or death due to any cause, which ever occurred first (maximum up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)23.9
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg14.7
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID16.6
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)18.4
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg9.5
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg11.1

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Objective Response (TTR)

TTR was the time between date of randomization until first documented response of CR or PR. Participants who did not achieve a PR or CR were censored at the last adequate tumor assessment date when they did not have a PFS event or at maximum follow-up (i.e. first patient first visit [FPFV] to last patient last visit [LPLV] used for the analysis) when they had a PFS event. CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. TTR was estimated in the treatment arms using a Kaplan-Meier method. TTR was based on central review. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)1.9
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg2.0
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID2.1
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)1.9
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg1.9
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg1.9

Part 1: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) in Combo 450 Group as Compared to LGX818 Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm^2. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 1: LGX 300 mg group

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)14.9
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg9.6

Part 1: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) in Combo 450 Group as Compared to Vemurafenib Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC/central review and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 square millimeter (mm^2). (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)14.9
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID7.3

Part 2: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by BIRC in Combo 300 Group as Compared to LGX818 Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm^2. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 35 months)

Interventionmonths (Median)
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)12.9
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg7.4
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg9.2

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Emotional Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg74.201.792.96-3.62-0.60-2.69-6.41-2.121.792.7816.675.56
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)73.047.296.159.379.2210.568.6610.5910.338.3313.13-4.17

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Emotional Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg74.380.321.98-0.911.26-0.740.831.303.261.27-0.762.94-0.32-0.83
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg74.46-0.341.540.342.150.123.782.303.641.00-1.162.94-0.32-3.57
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID72.311.882.032.71-0.174.53-2.25-5.46-1.390.38-3.13-0.69-1.1912.50
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)74.683.235.375.424.474.813.527.355.334.254.17-1.743.9241.67

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index Score at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consisted of two components: a health state profile (descriptive system) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) in which participants rate their overall health status from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable), where higher scores indicated better health status. EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 response levels: 1=no problems, 2=slight problems, 3=moderate problems, 4=severe problems and 5=extreme problems. EQ-5D-5L health status index score range between 0 to 1. Higher score indicated better health status. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg0.73-0.06-0.06-0.16-0.11-0.16-0.20-0.26-0.20-0.11-0.11-0.06
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)0.750.060.070.060.070.060.050.050.060.050.12-0.27

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index Score at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consisted of two components: a health state profile (descriptive system) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) in which participants rate their overall health status from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable), where higher scores indicated better health status. EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 response levels: 1=no problems, 2=slight problems, 3=moderate problems, 4=severe problems and 5=extreme problems. EQ-5D-5L health status index score range between 0 to 1. Higher score indicated better health status. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg0.75-0.09-0.13-0.14-0.14-0.17-0.18-0.20-0.15-0.17-0.14-0.11-0.11-0.08
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg0.76-0.10-0.15-0.13-0.15-0.18-0.17-0.18-0.14-0.18-0.14-0.11-0.11-0.09
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID0.730.00-0.04-0.03-0.04-0.01-0.02-0.07-0.02-0.02-0.04-0.05-0.17-0.14
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)0.740.050.040.050.030.040.050.050.070.030.070.040.070.03

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Global Health Status Score of EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg67.39-4.95-4.72-7.08-8.73-7.53-9.29-12.75-7.14-0.930.004.17
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)65.954.475.615.014.944.765.896.115.861.233.03-6.25

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Global Health Status Score of EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg66.48-6.81-7.87-8.53-10.96-10.13-8.80-10.56-7.85-8.05-10.80-5.64-7.054.63
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg66.07-7.64-9.24-9.21-12.03-11.27-8.59-9.91-8.03-9.33-11.05-5.64-7.054.76
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID64.74-3.46-4.05-3.04-6.94-3.80-2.93-10.34-6.94-1.89-8.85-3.47-2.38-4.17
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)66.723.561.551.53-0.550.810.425.020.41-0.510.74-1.391.960.00

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Physical Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg81.45-13.63-12.63-17.01-15.83-13.49-13.85-24.31-19.05-14.07-13.33-4.44
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)80.672.942.731.223.030.500.47-0.40-0.88-5.71-8.48-5.00

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Physical Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg82.63-13.74-15.74-16.49-18.27-19.87-18.22-21.18-18.91-19.14-16.78-14.46-15.93-2.00
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg83.18-13.79-17.14-16.26-19.43-22.65-20.00-20.26-18.88-20.07-16.86-14.46-15.93-0.95
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID80.71-2.90-7.45-6.98-6.82-4.11-6.30-6.22-3.27-1.90-4.90-2.22-4.76-15.00
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)82.100.200.15-1.93-0.45-0.85-1.250.29-0.03-1.22-0.95-5.00-5.4933.33

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Social Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg78.31-10.00-5.11-13.89-9.52-12.37-5.77-15.69-7.14-12.96-33.330.00
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)81.374.053.373.053.661.951.752.861.591.234.55-16.67

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Social Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg80.09-10.59-9.80-11.11-13.70-12.54-9.74-11.78-10.54-12.43-15.15-6.37-7.05-13.33
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg80.91-10.86-11.92-9.80-15.71-12.62-11.38-10.63-11.42-12.33-14.73-6.37-7.05-19.05
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID78.54-4.90-7.21-2.75-1.99-0.36-0.45-6.321.393.79-3.131.394.76-8.33
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)80.69-0.663.262.821.57-2.72-4.273.731.11-1.04-1.52-12.32-5.2125.00

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

FACT-M: melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs, symptoms, physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items, not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores. Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represented better quality of life. Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg51.13-2.16-0.60-3.14-1.83-2.41-3.31-4.14-2.640.00-2.00-1.61
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)52.082.792.582.643.232.541.972.082.451.232.586.58

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

FACT-M: melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs, symptoms, physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items, not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores. Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represented better quality of life. Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

,,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Cycle 3 Day 1Change at Cycle 5 Day 1Change at Cycle 7 Day 1Change at Cycle 9 Day 1Change at Cycle 11 Day 1Change at Cycle 13 Day 1Change at Cycle 15 Day 1Change at Cycle 17 Day 1Change at Cycle 19 Day 1Change at Cycle 21 Day 1Change at Cycle 23 Day 1Change at Cycle 25 Day 1Change at End of treatment visit
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID52.01-1.55-1.90-2.19-1.90-0.51-0.97-1.720.700.23-3.33-0.17-0.14-2.31
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)52.390.92-0.011.350.520.18-0.330.400.27-0.59-0.69-1.67-1.8318.50
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg52.24-3.14-2.78-3.08-2.39-3.29-2.88-2.88-1.88-2.38-2.58-1.38-1.00-3.81
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg52.76-3.58-3.77-3.05-2.69-3.67-2.71-2.48-1.66-2.80-2.59-1.38-1.00-5.18

Part 1 and Part 2: Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS)

ECOG: participant's performance status was measured on a 6-point scale: 0= fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1= restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light and sedentary nature; 2= ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50% of waking hours; 3= capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair >50% of waking hours; 4= completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed/chair: 5= dead. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Part 1 and Part 2: Baseline, Day 1 of each cycle (Cycle 2 to Cycle 31)

,,,,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline: ECOG score 0Baseline: ECOG score 1Cycle 2 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 2 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 2 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 2 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 2 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 3 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 3 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 3 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 4 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 4 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 4 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 4 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 5 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 5 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 5 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 5 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 5 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 6 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 6 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 6 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 6 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 6 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 7 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 7 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 7 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 8 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 8 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 8 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 8 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 9 Day 1: ECOG score 5Cycle 10 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 10 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 10 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 10 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 11 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 11 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 11 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 11 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 12 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 12 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 12 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 12 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 12 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 13 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 13 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 13 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 13 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 14 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 14 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 14 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 14 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 14 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 15 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 15 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 15 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 15 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 15 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 16 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 16 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 16 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 16 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 17 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 17 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 17 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 18 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 18 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 18 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 18 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 19 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 19 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 19 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 20 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 20 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 20 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 20 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 21 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 21 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 21 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 22 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 22 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 22 Day 1: ECOG score 3Cycle 22 Day 1: ECOG score 4Cycle 23 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 23 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 24 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 24 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 25 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 25 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 26 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 26 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 26 Day 1: ECOG score 2Cycle 27 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 27 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 28 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 28 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 29 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 29 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 30 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 30 Day 1: ECOG score 1Cycle 31 Day 1: ECOG score 0Cycle 31 Day 1: ECOG score 1
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg1997714211172013011361289671118100600979061195872777061726711007053206156405549210554630623720154372005230404833241290040261342220312012716112612231023821802061861359373
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg139539879320908149366418569400686530168601554931504710005235104440104431110413110472700141301004123303927136240038201311920291912716112612231023821802061861359373
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID13551113644001076449852448252711784611074352583340553041004326213920213216210271820251920022181002410102111118111120911980015801160010595927203441504020
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)136561424410113153112850101284231012445000111461112332110236401194323088302084251007722107423000722011064241065161601410549253701361092980024621717314315353120000
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg602444324004032235303033312002925310272712221302220010018181017163011181001415201510200137100117109615500260330021000000000000000000000000
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)18968193621001975511895641181552101685831115858214058111355200101214631116420011338001102391110033210822710164230152151341110227115500112042000000000000000000000

Part 1: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shift From Baseline in Laboratory Parameter Values Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) Grade, Version 4.03

Number of participants with clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter values based on national cancer institute common terminology criteria (NCI-CTCAE) grade, Version 4.03 were graded from Grades 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Grade 5: Death. Clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter = worsening by at least 2 grades or to >=grade 3. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Hemoglobin (hypo)Prothrombin international normalized ratio increasedLymphocytes (hypo)Lymphocytes (hyper)Neutrophils (hypo)Platelets (hypo)Leukocytes (hypo)Albumin (hypo)Alkaline phosphataseAlanine aminotransferaseAspartate aminotransferaseBilirubinCreatine (phospho)kinaseCorrected Calcium (hypo)Corrected Calcium (hyper)CreatinineGamma-glutamyl transferaseGlucose serum fasting (hypo)Glucose serum fasting (hyper)Magnesium (hypo)Magnesium (hyper)Phosphate (hypo)Potassium (hypo)Potassium (hyper)Sodium (hypo)
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg11115115135384011015294121025141
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID13341531424841313248153120135361
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)190201414253615121321035432200218167

Part 1: Number of Participants With Dermatologic-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Dermatologic-related AESI included rash, photosensitivity, nail disorders, skin infections, severe cutaneous adverse reactions and Palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE) syndrome. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
RashSkin infectionsPPE syndromePhotosensitivityNail disordersSevere cutaneous adverse reactions
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg10126001
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID2502305
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)240100

Part 1: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notable Electrocardiogram (ECG) Values

Newly occurring notable ECG values were reported for QT (millisecond [ms]), QTcF (millisecond), QTcB (millisecond) and heart rate (beats per minute). Newly occurring was defined as participants not meeting criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. Ranges for newly occurring notable ECG values (QT, QTcF, QTcB) are New greater than (>) 450, New >480, New >500, Increase from baseline >30, Increase from baseline >60. Heart rate: New <60, New >100 was considered as newly occurring notable value. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
QT: Increase >30 msQT: Increase >60 msQT: New >450 msQT: New >480 msQT: New >500 msQTcF: Increase >30 msQTcF: Increase >60 msQTcF: New >450 msQTcF: New >480 msQTcF: New >500 msQTcB: Increase >30 msQTcB: Increase >60 msQTcB: New >450 msQTcB: New >480 msQTcB: New >500 msHeart rate: New <60 bpmHeart rate: New <100 bpm
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg68191542567397574157623103723
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID81241732761042537814652081618
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)105272352501025714711471235814

Part 1: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notably Abnormal Vital Signs

Notably abnormal vital signs were: Low/high systolic blood pressure (SBP) (millimeter of mercury [mmHg]): less than or equal to (<=) 90 mmHg with decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to (>=) 20 mmHg/>= 160 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=20 mmHg. Low/high diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [mmHg]: <= 50 mmHg with decrease from baseline of >=15 mmHg/>=100 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=15 mmHg. Low/high Pulse rate: <=50 beats per minute (bpm) with decrease from baseline of >=15 bpm/>= 120 bpm with increase from baseline of >=15 bpm. Low/high Weight [kilogram]: >=20 percent (%) decrease from baseline/>= 10% increase from baseline. Low/high Body temperature degree Celsius (C): <= 36 degree C/>= 37.5 degree C. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Sitting Pulse Rate (bpm): HighSitting Pulse Rate (bpm): LowSitting Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): HighSitting Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): LowSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): HighSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): LowWeight (kg): HighWeight (kg): LowBody temperature (degree C): HighBody temperature (degree C): Low
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg78144571081174
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID823111358131757
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)132772394421976

Part 1: Number of Participants With Ocular-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Ocular-related AESI included retinopathy excluding retinal vein occlusion (RVO), RVO and uveitis-type events. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Retinopathy excluding RVORVOUveitis-type events
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg010
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID000
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)501

Part 1: Number of Participants With Worst Post-baseline Left Ventricular Dysfunction Events (LVEF) Values by Multigated Acquisition (MUGA) Scans or Transthoracic Echocardiograms (ECHO), by CTCAE Grade

Participants with worst post-baseline LVEF Values were graded as Grade 0: Non missing value below Grade 2; Grade 2: LVEF between 40% and 50% or absolute reduction from baseline >=10% and < 20%; Grade 3: LVEF between 20% and 39% or absolute reduction from baseline >=20%; Grade 4: LVEF lower than 20%. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing value prior to the first dose of study treatment. Missing data were due to participants who died or withdrew consent prior to the first scheduled evaluation or missed evaluations as protocol deviations. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Grade 0Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Missing
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg161174010
Part 1: LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)12756306
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID16116207

Part 1: Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) as Graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE), Version 4.03

AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires inpatient hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in persistent/significant disability/incapacity; results in congenital anomaly/birth defect or that is considered to be important medical event. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental activities of daily life (ADL); Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence; Grade 5: death. AEs of all grades were reported. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Participants with AEsParticipants with SAEs
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg99.534.9
Part 1: Vemurafenib 960 mg BID99.537.1
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)98.434.4

Part 1: Plasma Concentrations of LGX 818

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8 hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

,
Interventionnanogram per milliliter (Mean)
Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 1 Day 1: 0.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 1.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 4 to 8 hours post doseCycle 2 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose
Part 1: LGX818 300 mg58.111904090185073.653.8
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)18.6164068603400119150

Part 1: Plasma Concentrations of MEK162

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8, hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Interventionnanogram per milliliter (Mean)
Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 1 Day 1: 0.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 1.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 4 to 8 hours post doseCycle 2 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose
Part 1:LGX818 450 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 450)2.9542683233081.068.1

Part 2: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shift From Baseline in Laboratory Parameter Values Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) Grade, Version 4.0

Number of participants with clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter values based on national cancer institute common terminology criteria (NCI-CTCAE) grade, Version 4.0 were graded from Grades 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Grade 5: Death. Clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter = worsening by at least 2 grades or to >=grade 3. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Hemoglobin (hypo)Prothrombin international normalized ratio increasedLymphocytes (hypo)Lymphocytes (hyper)Neutrophils (hypo)Platelets (hypo)Leukocytes (hypo)Albumin (hypo)Alkaline phosphatase (hyper)Alanine aminotransferaseAspartate aminotransferaseBilirubinCreatine kinaseCorrected Calcium (hypo)CreatinineGamma-glutamyl transferaseGlucose serum fasting (hypo)Glucose serum fasting (hyper)Magnesium (hypo)Magnesium (hyper)Phosphate (hypo)Potassium (hypo)Potassium (hyper)Sodium (hypo)Sodium (hyper)
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg16125139259495012263841710331730
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg501024124111001119050080320
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)1642811191371118152404443832703262842

Part 2: Number of Participants With Dermatologic-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Dermatologic-related AESI included rash, photosensitivity, nail disorders, skin infections, severe cutaneous adverse reactions and PPE syndrome. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
RashSkin infectionPPE syndromePhotosensitivityNail disordersSevere cutaneous adverse reactions
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg13130001
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg304000
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)271000

Part 2: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notable ECG Values

Newly occurring notable ECG values were reported for QT (ms), QTcF (ms), QTcB (ms) and heart rate (bpm). Newly occurring was defined as participants not meeting criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. Ranges for newly occurring notable ECG values (QT, QTcF, QTcB) are New >450, New >480, New >500, increase from baseline >30, Increase from baseline >60. Heart rate: New < 60, New >100 was considered as newly occurring notable value. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
QT (ms): Increase from baseline > 30QT (ms): Increase from baseline > 60QT (ms): New > 450QT (ms): New > 480QT (ms): New > 500QTcF (ms): Increase from baseline > 30QTcF (ms): Increase from baseline > 60QTcF (ms): New > 450QTcF (ms): New > 480QTcF (ms): New > 500QTcB (ms): New > 450QTcB (ms): New > 480QTcB (ms): New > 500QTcB (ms): Increase from baseline > 30QTcB (ms): Increase from baseline > 60Heart rate (bpm): New < 60Heart rate (bpm): New > 100
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg95252062761450126104291198234233
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg27652020711512861248510
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)1323434945913361127023106922828

Part 2: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notably Abnormal Vital Signs

Notably abnormal vital signs were: Low/high systolic blood pressure (SBP) in millimeter of mercury (mmHg): less than or equal to (<=) 90 mmHg with decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to (>=) 20 mmHg/>= 160 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=20 mmHg, Low/high diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [mmHg]: <=50 mmHg with decrease from baseline of >=15 mmHg/>=100 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=15 mmHg, Low/high pulse rate [bpm]: <=50 bpm with decrease from baseline of >=15 bpm/>=120 bpm with increase from baseline of >=15 bpm, Low/high weight (kg): >=20 % decrease from baseline/>= 10% increase from baseline Low/high Body temperature degree C): <= 36°C/>= 37.5 degree C. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Sitting Pulse Rate (bpm): HighSitting Pulse Rate (bpm): LowSitting Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): HighSitting Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): LowSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): HighSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg): LowWeight (kg): HighWeight (kg): LowBody temperature (°C): HighBody temperature (°C): Low
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg109178791191696
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg31342211522
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)711401041746014120

Part 2: Number of Participants With Ocular-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Ocular-related AESI included retinopathy excluding RVO, RVO and uveitis-type events. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Retinopathy excluding RVORVOUveitis-type events
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg010
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg000
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)404

Part 2: Number of Participants With Worst Post-baseline Left Ventricular Dysfunction Events (LVEF) Values by Multigated Acquisition (MUGA) Scans or Transthoracic Echocardiograms (ECHO), by CTCAE Grade

Participants with worst post-baseline LVEF Values were graded as Grade 0: Non missing value below Grade 2; Grade 2: LVEF between 40% and 50% or absolute reduction from baseline >=10% and < 20%;Grade 3: LVEF between 20% and 39% or absolute reduction from baseline >=20%; Grade 4: LVEF lower than 20%. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing value prior to the first dose of study treatment. Missing data were due to participants who died or withdrew consent prior to the first scheduled evaluation or missed evaluations as protocol deviations. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Grade 0Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Missing
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg235224015
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg745005
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)18171302

Part 2: Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) as Graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE), Version 4.03

AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires inpatient hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in persistent/significant disability/incapacity; results in congenital anomaly/birth defect or that is considered to be important medical event. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental activities of daily life (ADL); Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence; Grade 5: death. AEs of all grades were reported. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

,,
Interventionpercentage of Participants (Number)
AEsSAEs
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg98.633.3
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg96.429.8
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)98.129.2

Part 2: Plasma Concentrations of LGX 818

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8 hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

,,
Interventionnanogram per milliliter (Mean)
Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 1 Day 1: 0.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 1.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 4 to 8 hours post doseCycle 2 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose
Part 1 + Part 2: LGX818 300 mg39.712504170198060.160.6
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg0.014513704310225029.579.5
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)5.0213604390242012174.1

Part 2: Plasma Concentrations of MEK162

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8, hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Interventionnanogram per milliliter (Mean)
Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 1 Day 1: 0.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 1.5 hours post doseCycle 1 Day 1: 4 to 8 hours post doseCycle 2 Day 1: pre-doseCycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose
Part 2: LGX818 300 mg QD+MEK162 45 mg BID (Combo 300)1.6836664228772.373.2

Adverse Events: Frequency and Severity

To assess the safety and tolerability of TD-4208 by assessing the frequency and severity of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE) (NCT02518139)
Timeframe: Baseline to Day 365

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Adverse Event (AE)Moderate or Severe AESerious AE
TD-4208-127222658
TD-4208-224217443
Tiotropium27521058

Reviews

7 reviews available for carbamates and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
Givinostat: an emerging treatment for polycythemia vera.
    Expert opinion on investigational drugs, 2020, Volume: 29, Issue:6

    Topics: Animals; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Janus

2020
[Kidney and bone update : the 5-year history and future of CKD-MBD. Vascular calcification in CKD patients].
    Clinical calcium, 2012, Volume: 22, Issue:7

    Topics: Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Calcium; Carbamates; Chelating Agents; Chronic Disease; Disease Progressio

2012
Do cholinesterase inhibitors slow progression of Alzheimer's disease?
    International journal of clinical practice. Supplement, 2002, Issue:127

    Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Disease Progression; Humans; Nootropic Age

2002
Rivastigmine: an update on therapeutic efficacy in Alzheimer's disease and other conditions.
    Current medical research and opinion, 2003, Volume: 19, Issue:2

    Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cognition; Disease Progression; Economics

2003
[Anticholinesterase agents in Alzheimer's disease].
    Revue medicale de Bruxelles, 2001, Volume: 22, Issue:4

    Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antioxidants; Carbamates; Cholinesterase

2001
Guidelines for managing Alzheimer's disease: Part II. Treatment.
    American family physician, 2002, Jun-15, Volume: 65, Issue:12

    Topics: Advance Directives; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Disease Progression; D

2002
Understanding and managing behavioural symptoms in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: focus on rivastigmine.
    Current medical research and opinion, 2002, Volume: 18, Issue:3

    Topics: Acetylcholine; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Behavioral Therap

2002

Trials

14 trials available for carbamates and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in
    The New England journal of medicine, 2019, 10-24, Volume: 381, Issue:17

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Carb

2019
Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in
    The New England journal of medicine, 2019, 10-24, Volume: 381, Issue:17

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Carb

2019
Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in
    The New England journal of medicine, 2019, 10-24, Volume: 381, Issue:17

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Carb

2019
Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in
    The New England journal of medicine, 2019, 10-24, Volume: 381, Issue:17

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Carb

2019
Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
    The Lancet. Oncology, 2018, Volume: 19, Issue:10

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Biom

2018
Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
    Respiratory medicine, 2019, Volume: 153

    Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Benzamides; Bronchodilator Ag

2019
Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
    Respiratory medicine, 2019, Volume: 153

    Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Benzamides; Bronchodilator Ag

2019
Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
    Respiratory medicine, 2019, Volume: 153

    Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Benzamides; Bronchodilator Ag

2019
Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
    Respiratory medicine, 2019, Volume: 153

    Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Benzamides; Bronchodilator Ag

2019
A randomized double blind, placebo controlled phase 2 trial of BIIL 284 BS (an LTB4 receptor antagonist) for the treatment of lung disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.
    Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society, 2014, Volume: 13, Issue:2

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amidines; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid; Carbamates; Chi

2014
Serum cholesterol levels modulate long-term efficacy of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer disease.
    Neuroscience letters, 2003, Jun-12, Volume: 343, Issue:3

    Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Apolipoproteins E; Carbamates; Cholesterol; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dise

2003
Potential long-term effects of rivastigmine on disease progression may be linked to drug effects on vascular changes in Alzheimer brains.
    International journal of clinical practice, 2003, Volume: 57, Issue:9

    Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Disease Progression; Female; Humans;

2003
Hallucinations predict attentional improvements with rivastigmine in dementia with lewy bodies.
    Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2004, Volume: 18, Issue:1

    Topics: Aged; Attention; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hallucinations; Human

2004
Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer's disease: international randomised controlled trial.
    BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999, Mar-06, Volume: 318, Issue:7184

    Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase I

1999
Savings in the cost of caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease in Canada: an analysis of treatment with rivastigmine.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2000, Volume: 22, Issue:4

    Topics: Aged; Algorithms; Alzheimer Disease; Canada; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Cost

2000
A 52-week study of the efficacy of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease.
    European neurology, 2000, Volume: 44, Issue:4

    Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Disease Prog

2000
Response of patients with Alzheimer disease to rivastigmine treatment is predicted by the rate of disease progression.
    Archives of neurology, 2001, Volume: 58, Issue:3

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Disease Progressi

2001
An open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's disease in the community setting.
    Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2002, Volume: 8, Issue:2

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Male; N

2002
Rivastigmine in outpatient services: experience of 114 neurologists in Austria.
    International clinical psychopharmacology, 2002, Volume: 17, Issue:2

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Austria; Carbamates; Cognition; Disease Progression; Fem

2002
Dual vs single protease inhibitor therapy following antiretroviral treatment failure: a randomized trial.
    JAMA, 2002, Jul-10, Volume: 288, Issue:2

    Topics: Adenine; Adult; Alkynes; Anti-HIV Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Benzoxazines; Carba

2002

Other Studies

32 other studies available for carbamates and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
Upfront progression under pembrolizumab followed by a complete response after encorafenib and cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated and microsatellite unstable metastatic colorectal cancer patient: A case report.
    Genes, chromosomes & cancer, 2022, Volume: 61, Issue:2

    Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Carbamates; Cetuximab; Colon; Colorectal N

2022
Efficacy and safety of the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir combination for the treatment of patients with early mild to moderate COVID-19.
    Scientific reports, 2022, 04-06, Volume: 12, Issue:1

    Topics: Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Case-Control Studies; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Disease Progression; Ge

2022
Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India.
    PloS one, 2019, Volume: 14, Issue:8

    Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cohort Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Dru

2019
Hepatitis C therapy with direct antiviral agents in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: real-world experience of the German Hepatitis C-Registry (Deutsches Hepatitis C-Register).
    European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2019, Volume: 31, Issue:11

    Topics: 2-Naphthylamine; Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Anemia; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Car

2019
Clinical and Radiographic Response of Leptomeningeal and Brain Metastases to Encorafenib and Binimetinib in a Patient With BRAF V600E-Mutated Lung Adenocarcinoma.
    Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2019, Volume: 14, Issue:12

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma of Lung; Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Brain

2019
Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir Mitigate Hepatic Fibrosis Through Downregulation of TNF-α / NF-κB Signaling Pathway.
    Current molecular pharmacology, 2020, Volume: 13, Issue:4

    Topics: Animals; Carbamates; Carbon Tetrachloride; Disease Progression; Down-Regulation; Hepatic Stellate Ce

2020
Complete response with combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in BRAF mutated advanced low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.
    Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2020, Volume: 125, Issue:4

    Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Benzimidazoles; Bevacizumab; CA-125 Antigen; Carbamates; Carboplatin; Cystade

2020
Stopping targeted therapy for complete responders in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma.
    Scientific reports, 2020, 11-02, Volume: 10, Issue:1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Circulating Tumor DNA; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Imidazoles; Mal

2020
Effectiveness of a fixed combination formula of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir for hepatitis C virus infection in patients on maintenance haemodialysis.
    Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.), 2017, Volume: 22, Issue:7

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cyclopropanes; Disease Progression;

2017
Long-term follow-up of clinical trial patients treated for chronic HCV infection with daclatasvir-based regimens.
    Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, 2018, Volume: 38, Issue:5

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Drug Resistance, Viral; Drug Therapy

2018
Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir therapy in patients with hepatitis C-related advanced decompensated liver disease (MELD ≥ 15).
    Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2018, Volume: 47, Issue:3

    Topics: Antiviral Agents; Australia; Carbamates; Compassionate Use Trials; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy

2018
Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients in China.
    PloS one, 2018, Volume: 13, Issue:4

    Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; China; Cohort Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progressi

2018
Cdc20 inhibitor apcin inhibits the growth and invasion of osteosarcoma cells.
    Oncology reports, 2018, Volume: 40, Issue:2

    Topics: Apoptosis; Bcl-2-Like Protein 11; Carbamates; Cdc20 Proteins; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation;

2018
Inhibition of monoacylglycerol lipase, an anti-inflammatory and antifibrogenic strategy in the liver.
    Gut, 2019, Volume: 68, Issue:3

    Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Autophagy; Carbamates; Carbon Tetrachloride; Cell Count; Cells, C

2019
Proteomic identification of a marker signature for MAPKi resistance in melanoma.
    The EMBO journal, 2019, 08-01, Volume: 38, Issue:15

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Cell Adhesion; Cell Line, Tumor; Disease Progression; Drug Resistance, Neop

2019
Effects of a novel orally administered calpain inhibitor SNJ-1945 on immunomodulation and neurodegeneration in a murine model of multiple sclerosis.
    Journal of neurochemistry, 2014, Volume: 130, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Blotting, Western; Calpain; Carbamates; Cell Proliferation; Cell Separation; Cysteine Prote

2014
Cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus.
    Annals of internal medicine, 2015, Mar-17, Volume: 162, Issue:6

    Topics: Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Drug Costs

2015
Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis patients of Asian descent.
    Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2015, Volume: 54, Issue:10

    Topics: Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Asian People; Biomarkers; Carbamates; Case-Contro

2015
Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir with daclatasvir for non-cirrhotic genotype-1b-naïve patients plus chronic hepatitis C.
    Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 2016, Volume: 16, Issue:2

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy,

2016
Evaluation of the association between anticarbamylated protein antibodies and the longitudinal course of functional ability in rheumatoid arthritis.
    Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2016, Volume: 75, Issue:4

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Autoantibodies; Carbamates; Citrulline; Cohort Studies; Disease

2016
The association between anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies and radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: a study exploring replication and the added value to ACPA and rheumatoid factor.
    Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2017, Volume: 76, Issue:1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Autoantibodies; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Female; Humans;

2017
Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies: a specific hallmark for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison to conditions known for enhanced carbamylation; renal failure, smoking and chronic inflammation.
    Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2016, Volume: 75, Issue:8

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Animals; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Autoantibodies; Autoantigens; Biomarkers; Carbamates; C

2016
Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Patients Coinfected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States.
    Advances in therapy, 2016, Volume: 33, Issue:8

    Topics: 2-Naphthylamine; Adult; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Carcinoma, Hepatocel

2016
HCV Resistance Profile Evolution in a GT1b, DAA-Naive Patient Before, On, and After Failing Triple DAA Therapy.
    Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2017, Volume: 15, Issue:2

    Topics: 2-Naphthylamine; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cyclopropanes; Disease Progression; Drug Co

2017
Identification of Genotype 2 HCV in Serotype-1 Hepatitis C Patients Unresponsive to Daclatasvir plus Asunaprevir Treatment.
    The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine, 2017, Volume: 241, Issue:1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Base Sequence; Carbamates; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combin

2017
Combination Therapy with Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir for Dialysis Patients Infected with Hepatitis C Virus: A Prospective Multi-Institutional Study.
    The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine, 2017, Volume: 241, Issue:1

    Topics: Aged; Anilides; Carbamates; Cyclopropanes; Demography; Disease Progression; Drug Resistance, Viral;

2017
[Presentation and stability of cognitive and noncognitive symptom patterns in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Disease course over a two-year period under constant treatment conditions with rivastigmine].
    Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 2003, Volume: 71, Issue:4

    Topics: Affective Disorders, Psychotic; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anxiety Disorders; Carba

2003
Fatal lactic acidosis and mimicking Guillain-Barré syndrome in an adolescent with human immunodeficiency virus infection.
    The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 2003, Volume: 22, Issue:7

    Topics: Acidosis, Lactic; Adenine; Adolescent; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Carbamates; Diagnosis,

2003
Impact of rivastigmine on costs and on time spent in caregiving for families of patients with Alzheimer's disease.
    International psychogeriatrics, 2003, Volume: 15, Issue:4

    Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Carbamates; Caregivers; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Co

2003
Optimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus: fasting and postprandial glucose in context.
    Archives of internal medicine, 2004, Mar-08, Volume: 164, Issue:5

    Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Carbamates; Diabetes Mellitus

2004
ICAAC update.
    STEP perspective, 1996,Fall, Volume: 8, Issue:3

    Topics: Acetamides; Acetophenones; Anti-HIV Agents; Carbamates; CD4 Lymphocyte Count; Clinical Trials as Top

1996
Carbamoylation of glomerular and tubular proteins in patients with kidney failure: a potential mechanism of ongoing renal damage.
    Swiss medical weekly, 2001, Mar-24, Volume: 131, Issue:11-12

    Topics: Amino Acids; Animals; Carbamates; Citrulline; Cyanates; Disease Progression; Fluorescent Antibody Te

2001