Lpath Reports Interim Data From Phase 2a Study for Anti-Cancer Drug, ASONEP

Editor’s note: Researchers are conducting a clinical trial with volunteer patients to test a new kidney cancer treatment called ASONEP. Specifically, the trial is testing the effectiveness of ASONEP for people with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who were previously but unsuccessfully treated with at least one “VEGF inhibitor” drug (like Sutent, aka sunitinib) and no more than one “mTOR inhibitor” drug (like Afinitor, aka everolimus), with a maximum of three unsuccessful previous treatments overall. The clinical trial is ongoing, but interim results show that ASONEP is safe and hasn’t caused serious side effects. The researchers also said the drug appeared to show promise as a cancer-fighting treatment.

“Lpath, Inc. (NASDAQ: LPTN), the industry leader in bioactive lipid-targeted therapeutics, reported interim results in a Phase 2a single-arm, open-label trial where ASONEP™ is being investigated as a treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients that have failed at least one therapy involving a VEGF inhibitor (e.g., Sutent®/ sunitinib maleate) and no more than one mTOR inhibitor (e.g., Afinitor®/everolimus), with a maximum of three failed treatments in all. This patient population is considered “last line,” and the literature suggests cancer progression in this population within a one-to-two month time frame.

“Lpath has enrolled 26 patients in the study. ASONEP has a favorable safety profile thus far, with no serious adverse events (SAEs) deemed to be drug-related.

“The first 17 patients were initiated at a dose of 15 mg/kg. Of these “lower-dose” patients:  7 had progressive disease at or before the end of four months; 8 were progression-free at the four-month mark (with 1 of these patients deemed a partial responder per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria and with 3 of these patients experiencing reduced tumor volume, but not enough to be categorized as a RECIST-based partial responder); and 2 exited the study due to SAEs unrelated to the drug prior to the four-month mark (and are not considered evaluable). Notably, of the 8 patients that were stable or better as of month four, 2 are now in their fifteenth month on the study, 1 is in month thirteen, and 1 is in month ten. An additional patient was stable through month seven, but then missed six treatments during a vacation, and shortly thereafter progressed.”