Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Fractures in men are a major health issue, and data on the antifracture efficacy of therapies for osteoporosis in men are limited. We studied the effect of zoledronic acid on fracture risk among men with osteoporosis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1199 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis who were 50 to 85 years of age to receive an intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid (5 mg) or placebo at baseline and at 12 months. Participants received daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with one or more new morphometric vertebral fractures over a period of 24 months. RESULTS: The rate of any new morphometric vertebral fracture was 1.6% in the zoledronic acid group and 4.9% in the placebo group over the 24-month period, representing a 67% risk reduction with zoledronic acid (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.70; P=0.002). As compared with men who received placebo, men who received zoledronic acid had fewer moderate-to-severe vertebral fractures (P=0.03) and less height loss (P=0.002). Fewer participants who received zoledronic acid had clinical vertebral or nonvertebral fractures, although this difference did not reach significance because of the small number of fractures. Bone mineral density was higher and bone-turnover markers were lower in the men who received zoledronic acid (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Results were similar in men with low serum levels of total testosterone. The zoledronic acid and placebo groups did not differ significantly with respect to the incidence of death (2.6% and 2.9%, respectively) or serious adverse events (25.3% and 25.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk of vertebral fracture among men with osteoporosis. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00439647.).

Masitinib for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Masitinib is an orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets activated cells of the neuroimmune system (mast cells and microglia). Study AB09004 evaluated masitinib as an adjunct to cholinesterase inhibitor and/or memantine in patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Study AB09004 was a randomized, double-blind, two parallel-group (four-arm), placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged ≥50 years, with clinical diagnosis of mild-to-moderate probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 12-25 were randomized (1:1) to receive masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day (administered orally as two intakes) or placebo. A second, independent parallel group (distinct for statistical analysis and control arm), randomized patients (2:1) to masitinib at an initial dose of 4.5 mg/kg/day for 12 weeks that was then titrated to 6.0 mg/kg/day, or equivalent placebo. Multiple primary outcomes (each tested at a significance level of 2.5%) were least-squares mean change from baseline to week 24 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), or the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory scale (ADCS-ADL). Safety for each masitinib dose level was compared against a pooled placebo population. RESULTS: Masitinib (4.5 mg/kg/day) (n=182) showed significant benefit over placebo (n=176) according to the primary endpoint of ADAS-cog, -1.46 (95% CI [-2.46, -0.45]) (representing an overall improvement in cognition) versus 0.69 (95% CI [-0.36, 1.75]) (representing increased cognitive deterioration), respectively, with a significant between-group difference of -2.15 (97.5% CI [-3.48, -0.81]); p<0.001. For the ADCS-ADL primary endpoint, the between-group difference was 1.82 (97.5% CI [-0.15, 3.79]); p=0.038 (i.e., 1.01 (95% CI [-0.48, 2.50]) (representing an overall functional improvement) versus -0.81 (95% CI [-2.36, 0.74]) (representing increased functional deterioration), respectively). Safety was consistent with masitinib's known profile (maculo-papular rash, neutropenia, hypoalbuminemia). Efficacy results from the independent parallel group of titrated masitinib 6.0 mg/kg/day versus placebo (n=186 and 91 patients, respectively) were inconclusive and no new safety signal was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Masitinib (4.5 mg/kg/day) may benefit people with mild-to-moderate AD. A confirmatory study has been initiated to substantiate these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2010-021218-50. CLINICALTRIALS: gov : NCT01872598.

Efficacy and Safety of ABT-126 in Subjects with Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease on Stable Doses of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: ABT-126 is a potent, selective α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist with putative procognitive effects as a monotherapy in treating Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study (NCT01549834) investigated the efficacy and safety of ABT-126 in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD who were taking stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs). METHODS: Subjects received 25 mg ABT-126 (n = 143), 75 mg ABT-126 (n = 145), or placebo (n = 146) once daily for 24 weeks. Subjects who completed the 24-week double-blind study were eligible to enroll in a 28-week open-label extension study (NCT01690195) and received 75 mg ABT-126 daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 24 in the 11-item total score of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale- Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). RESULTS: Neither dose of ABT-126 demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo in the primary efficacy endpoint. However, 25 mg ABT-126 demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo in ADAS-Cog scores at week 4 (least squares mean difference, -1.21; standard error, 0.51; p <  0.010, one-sided); 75 mg ABT-126 did not demonstrate significant improvements in ADAS-Cog scores compared with placebo at any time point. A treatment effect was not observed for any secondary efficacy measures of cognition, function, or global improvement. ABT-126 was generally well tolerated; the most common adverse events were agitation, constipation, diarrhea, fall, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the efficacy profile of ABT-126 did not warrant further development as add-on therapy to AChEIs to treat mild-to-moderate AD.