Extended Safety and Tolerability of Darolutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Adverse Event Time Course in ARAMIS.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are usually asymptomatic and seek treatments that improve survival but have a low risk of adverse events. Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi), significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo in ARAMIS. We assessed the extended safety and tolerability of darolutamide and the time-course profile of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to ARis and androgen-suppressive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554). After trial unblinding, patients could receive open-label darolutamide. Tolerability and TEAEs were assessed every 16 weeks. Time interval-specific new and cumulative event rates were determined during the first 24 months of the double-blind period. RESULTS: Darolutamide remained well tolerated during the double-blind and open-label periods, with 98.8% of patients receiving the full planned dose. The incidence of TEAEs of interest in the darolutamide group was low and ≤2% different from that in the placebo group, except for fatigue. When incidences were adjusted for exposure time, there were minimal differences between the darolutamide double-blind and double-blind plus open-label periods. The rate of initial onset and cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs and serious TEAEs were similar for darolutamide and placebo groups over 24 months. CONCLUSION: Extended treatment with darolutamide was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Most ARi-associated and androgen-suppressive treatment-related TEAEs occurred at low incidences with darolutamide, were similar to placebo, and showed minimal increase over time with continued treatment. TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02200614.

Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Survival with Darolutamide.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a structurally distinct androgen-receptor inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the planned primary analysis of a phase 3 trial, the median metastasis-free survival was significantly longer with darolutamide (40.4 months) than with placebo (18.4 months). The data for the analysis of overall survival were immature at the time of the primary analysis. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1509 men, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive darolutamide (955 patients) or placebo (554 patients) while they continued to receive androgen-deprivation therapy. After the results of the primary end-point analysis were found to be positive, unblinding of the treatment assignments occurred, and patients in the placebo group were permitted to cross over to receive open-label darolutamide treatment. At the time of this prespecified final analysis, which had been planned to be performed after approximately 240 deaths had occurred, overall survival and all other secondary end points were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 29.0 months. At the time of unblinding of the data, all 170 patients who were still receiving placebo crossed over to receive darolutamide; 137 patients who had discontinued placebo before unblinding had occurred received at least one other life-prolonging therapy. Overall survival at 3 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80 to 86) in the darolutamide group and 77% (95% CI, 72 to 81) in the placebo group. The risk of death was significantly lower, by 31%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.88; P = 0.003). Darolutamide was also associated with a significant benefit with respect to all other secondary end points, including the time to first symptomatic skeletal event and the time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The incidence of adverse events after the start of treatment was similar in the two groups; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, the percentage of patients who were alive at 3 years was significantly higher among those who received darolutamide than among those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer HealthCare and Orion Pharma; ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200614.).

Darolutamide in Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a structurally unique androgen-receptor antagonist that is under development for the treatment of prostate cancer. We evaluated the efficacy of darolutamide for delaying metastasis and death in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or placebo while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, with the presence of metastasis determined by independent central review of radiographic imaging every 16 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 1509 patients underwent randomization (955 to the darolutamide group and 554 to the placebo group). In the planned primary analysis, which was performed after 437 primary end-point events had occurred, the median metastasis-free survival was 40.4 months with darolutamide, as compared with 18.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio for metastasis or death in the darolutamide group, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.50; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with benefits with regard to all secondary end points, including overall survival, time to pain progression, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and time to a symptomatic skeletal event. The incidence of adverse events that occurred or worsened during the treatment period and had a frequency of 5% or more or were of grade 3 or higher was similar in the two groups; all such events except fatigue occurred in less than 10% of patients in either group. The percentage of patients who discontinued the assigned regimen because of adverse events was 8.9% in the darolutamide group and 8.7% in the placebo group. Darolutamide was not associated with a higher incidence of seizures, falls, fractures, cognitive disorder, or hypertension than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastasis-free survival was significantly longer with darolutamide than with placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar for darolutamide and placebo. (Funded by Bayer HealthCare and Orion Pharma; ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200614.).

Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Black/African-American patients from the phase III ARAMIS study.

Aim: Darolutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in the phase III ARAMIS study. We evaluated outcomes in Black/African-American patients in ARAMIS. Materials & methods: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) plus androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was MFS. Secondary end points included OS and safety. Results: In 52 (3.4%) Black/African-American patients, darolutamide improved MFS (median: not reached vs 12.4 months) and OS (3-year survival rates: 100 vs 71%) versus placebo. The safety profile of darolutamide in Black/African-American patients was consistent with that of all ARAMIS patients. Conclusion: In Black/African-American patients, darolutamide improved MFS and OS and was well tolerated, consistent with the overall ARAMIS population.

In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to androgen-deprivation therapy, or 'ADT,' and has not spread to other parts of the body (known as nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or 'nmCRPC'), darolutamide is an oral treatment option. Darolutamide added to ADT was tested in patients with nmCRPC in a large international study called ARAMIS and was found to prolong the time that patients were free from their cancer spreading compared with patients who received ADT alone. This report provides information on the effect of darolutamide in the 52 Black/African­American patients who took part in ARAMIS. In these patients, darolutamide showed similar effects on lowering the risk of their cancer spreading and was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a sub-group analysis of the phase III ARAMIS trial.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has been approved for treating nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), based on significant improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the ARAMIS clinical trial. Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients are reported here. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 1509 patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤ 10 months were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or matched placebo while continuing androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was MFS. RESULTS: In Japan, 95 patients were enrolled and randomized to darolutamide (n = 62) or placebo (n = 33). At the primary analysis (cut-off date: September 3, 2018), after 20 primary end-point events had occurred, median MFS was not reached with darolutamide vs. 18.2 months with placebo (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.70). Median OS was not reached due to limited numbers of events in both groups but favored darolutamide in the Japanese subgroup. Time to pain progression, time to PSA progression, and PSA response also favored darolutamide. Among Japanese patients randomized to darolutamide vs. placebo, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 85.5 vs. 63.6%, and incidences of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs were 8.1 vs. 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy outcomes favored darolutamide in Japanese patients with nmCRPC, supporting the clinical benefit of darolutamide in this patient population. Darolutamide was well tolerated; however, due to the small sample size, it is impossible to conclude with certainty whether differences in the safety profile exist between Japanese and overall ARAMIS populations.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use.

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Oral levosimendan in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a phase II multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral levosimendan in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, three-period study with 6 months open-label follow-up enrolled adults with ALS and sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) 60%-90 % of predicted from 11 sites in four countries. METHODS: Patients received levosimendan 1 mg daily, 1 mg two times a day or placebo during three 14-day crossover periods and levosimendan 1-2 mg daily during open-label follow-up. Primary endpoint was sitting SVC; secondary endpoints included supine SVC, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Of 66 patients randomised, 59 contributed to the double-blind results and 50 entered open-label follow-up. Sitting SVC was not significantly different between the treatments. In post hoc analysis using period-wise baselines, supine SVC favoured levosimendan over placebo, estimated mean differences from baseline being -3.62% on placebo, +0.77% on levosimendan 1 mg daily (p=0.018) and +2.38% on 1 mg two times a day (p=0.001). Headache occurred in 16.7% of patients during levosimendan 1 mg daily (p=0.030), 28.6% during 1 mg two times a day (p=0.002) and 3.3% during placebo. The respective frequencies for increased heart rate were 5.1% (p=0.337), 18.5% (p=0.018) and 1.7%. No significant differences between the treatments were seen for other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving sitting SVC in ALS. Headache and increased heart rate were increased on levosimendan, although it was otherwise well tolerated. A phase III study to evaluate the longer term effects of oral levosimendan in ALS is ongoing.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Efficacy and safety outcomes of darolutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with comorbidities and concomitant medications from the randomised phase 3 ARAMIS trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in the Androgen Receptor Antagonizing Agent for Metastasis-free Survival (ARAMIS) trial, darolutamide significantly improved median metastasis-free survival by nearly 2 years and reduced the risk of death by 31% versus placebo, with a favourable safety/tolerability profile. This post hoc analysis of ARAMIS evaluated efficacy and safety in patients by number of comorbidities and concomitant medications. METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomised 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. Overall survival (OS) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated in subgroups by median numbers of ongoing comorbidities and concomitant medications. HRs were determined from univariate analysis using Cox regression. FINDINGS: Median numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications were 6 and 10, respectively, with 41.6% of patients having >6 comorbidities and 48.8% taking >10 concomitant medications. For patients with ≤ 6 and >6 comorbidities, darolutamide increased OS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65 and 0.73, respectively), and this benefit was consistent for cardiovascular, metabolic, and other comorbidities (HR range: 0.39-0.88). For patients taking ≤ 10 and >10 concomitant medications, increased OS was also observed with darolutamide versus placebo (HR 0.76 and 0.66, respectively), and the benefit was consistent across medication classes (HR range: 0.45-0.80). Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation with darolutamide were similar to placebo across subgroups by numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications. CONCLUSIONS: The OS benefit and safety of darolutamide remained consistent with that observed in the overall ARAMIS population, even in patients with high numbers of comorbidities or concomitant medications. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02200614. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Darolutamide increased overall survival versus placebo, and incidences of most adverse events were similar between treatments in patients with ≤ 6 or >6 comorbidities and those taking ≤ 10 or >10 concomitant medications.

Feasibility and patient acceptability of a commercially available wearable and a smart phone application in identification of motor states in parkinson's disease.

In the quantification of symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), healthcare professional assessments, patient reported outcomes (PRO), and medical device grade wearables are currently used. Recently, also commercially available smartphones and wearable devices have been actively researched in the detection of PD symptoms. The continuous, longitudinal, and automated detection of motor and especially non-motor symptoms with these devices is still a challenge that requires more research. The data collected from everyday life can be noisy and frequently contains artefacts, and novel detection methods and algorithms are therefore needed. 42 PD patients and 23 control subjects were monitored with Garmin Vivosmart 4 wearable device and asked to fill a symptom and medication diary with a mobile application, at home, for about four weeks. Subsequent analyses are based on continuous accelerometer data from the device. Accelerometer data from the Levodopa Response Study (MJFFd) were reanalyzed, with symptoms quantified with linear spectral models trained on expert evaluations present in the data. Variational autoencoders (VAE) were trained on both our study accelerometer data and on MJFFd to detect movement states (e.g., walking, standing). A total of 7590 self-reported symptoms were recorded during the study. 88.9% (32/36) of PD patients, 80.0% (4/5) of DBS PD patients and 95.5% (21/22) of control subjects reported that using the wearable device was very easy or easy. Recording a symptom at the time of the event was assessed as very easy or easy by 70.1% (29/41) of subjects with PD. Aggregated spectrograms of the collected accelerometer data show relative attenuation of low (<5Hz) frequencies in patients. Similar spectral patterns also separate symptom periods from immediately adjacent non-symptomatic periods. Discriminative power of linear models to separate symptoms from adjacent periods is weak, but aggregates show partial separability of patients vs. controls. The analysis reveals differential symptom detectability across movement tasks, motivating the third part of the study. VAEs trained on either dataset produced embedding from which movement states in MJFFd could be predicted. A VAE model was able to detect the movement states. Thus, a pre-detection of these states with a VAE from accelerometer data with good S/N ratio, and subsequent quantification of PD symptoms is a feasible strategy. The usability of the data collection method is important to enable the collection of self-reported symptom data by PD patients. Finally, the usability of the data collection method is important to enable the collection of self-reported symptom data by PD patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Darolutamide in Patients with Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Stratified by Prostate-specific Antigen Doubling Time: Planned Subgroup Analysis of the Phase 3 ARAMIS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have a high risk of progression to metastatic disease, particularly if their prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is ≤6 mo. However, patients remain at a high risk with a PSADT of >6 mo. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in patients stratified by PSADT >6 or ≤6 mo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A planned subgroup analysis of a global multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial in men with nmCRPC and PSADT ≤10 mo was conducted. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 2:1 to oral darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, and symptomatic skeletal events. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using validated prostate-relevant tools. Safety was recorded throughout the study. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1509 patients enrolled, 469 had PSADT >6 mo (darolutamide n = 286; placebo n = 183) and 1040 had PSADT ≤6 mo (darolutamide n = 669; placebo n = 371). Baseline characteristics were balanced between subgroups. Darolutamide significantly prolonged MFS versus placebo in both subgroups (unstratified hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: PSADT >6 mo, 0.38 [0.26-0.55]; PSADT ≤6 mo, 0.41 [0.33-0.52]). OS and other efficacy and QoL endpoints favored darolutamide with significant improvement over placebo in both subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including events commonly associated with androgen receptor inhibitors (fractures, falls, hypertension, and mental impairment), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low and similar to placebo. Limitations include small subgroup populations. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nmCRPC and PSADT >6 mo (maximum 10 mo), darolutamide provided a favorable benefit/risk ratio, characterized by significant improvements in MFS, OS, and other clinically relevant endpoints; maintenance of QoL; and favorable tolerability. PATIENT SUMMARY: In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to standard hormonal therapy (indicated by an increase in prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels), there is a risk that the cancer will spread to other parts of the body. This risk is highest when the time it takes for the PSA level to double (ie, "PSA doubling time" [PSADT]) is less than 6 mo. However, there is still a risk that the cancer will spread even if the PSADT is longer than 6 mo. In a group of patients whose PSADT was more than 6 mo but no more than 10 mo, treatment with darolutamide slowed the cancer spread and allowed them to live longer than patients who received placebo (inactive drug). Darolutamide treatment did not cause many side effects and helped maintain patients' quality of life without disruptions.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). INTERVENTIONS: Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.

Body movement as a biomarker for use in chronic pain rehabilitation: An embedded analysis of an RCT of a virtual reality solution for adults with chronic pain.

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health problem. Reliably measuring the effects of chronic pain on movement and activity, and any changes due to treatment, is a healthcare challenge. A recently published paper demonstrated that a novel digital therapeutic (DTxP) was efficacious in reducing fear of movement and increasing the quality of life of adult patients with moderate to severe CLBP. In this paper, we report a study of how data from wearable devices collected in this study could be used as a digital measure for use in studies of chronic low back pain. Methods: Movement, electrodermal recording, general activity and clinical assessment data were collected in a clinical trial of a novel digital therapeutic intervention (DTxP) by using the sensors in commercial Garmin Vivosmart 4, Empatica Embrace2 and Oculus Quest wearables. Wearable data were collected during and between the study interventions (frequent treatment sessions of DTxP). Data were analyzed using exploratory statistical analysis. Results: A pattern of increased longitudinal velocity in the movement data collected with right-hand, left-hand, and head sensors was observed in the study population. Correlations were observed with the changes in clinical scales (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, EQ5D Overall health VAS, and EQ5D QoL score). The strongest correlation was observed with the increased velocity of head and right-hand sensors (Spearman correlation with increasing head sensor velocity and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia -0.45, Overall health VAS +0.67 and EQ5D QoL score -0.66). The sample size limited interpretation of electrodermal and general activity data. Discussion/Conclusion: We found a novel digital signal for use in monitoring the efficacy of a digital therapeutics (DTxP) in adults with CLBP. We discuss the potential use of such movement based digital markers as surrogate or additional endpoints in studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04225884?cond=NCT04225884&draw=2&rank=1, identifier: NCT04225884.

A prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial of an "embodied" virtual reality intervention for adults with low back pain.

ABSTRACT: Adults with chronic low back pain, disability, moderate-to-severe pain, and high fear of movement and reinjury were recruited into a trial of a novel, automated, digital therapeutics, virtual reality, psychological intervention for pain (DTxP). We conducted a 3-arm, prospective, double-blind, pilot, randomized, controlled trial comparing DTxP with a sham placebo comparator and an open-label standard care. Participants were enrolled for 6 to 8 weeks, after which, the standard care control arm were rerandomized to receive either the DTxP or sham placebo. Forty-two participants completed assessments at baseline, immediately posttreatment (6-8 weeks), 9-week, and 5-month follow-up. We found that participants in the DTxP group reported greater reductions in fear of movement and better global impression of change when compared with sham placebo and standard care post treatment. No other group differences were noted at posttreatment or follow-up. When compared with baseline, participants in the DTxP group reported lower disability at 5-month follow-up, lower pain interference and fear of movement post treatment and follow-up, and lower pain intensity at posttreatment. The sham placebo group also reported lower disability and fear of movement at 5-month follow-up compared with baseline. Standard care did not report any significant changes. There were a number of adverse events, with one participant reporting a serious adverse event in the sham placebo, which was not related to treatment. No substantial changes in medications were noted, and participants in the DTxP group reported positive gaming experiences.

Safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (the REFALS study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet need for new therapies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In a clinical study with healthy volunteers, levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, was shown to improve neuromechanical efficiency and contractile function of the human diaphragm. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with a focus on respiratory function. METHODS: The REFALS study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial at 99 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis specialist centres in 14 countries worldwide. People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were eligible for participation if they were at least 18 years of age and had a sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) of 60-90% predicted. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive web-response system to receive either levosimendan or placebo. The capsules for oral administration were identical in appearance to maintain blinding of participants and investigators. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks, assessed as the percentage of predicted normal sitting SVC. The key secondary endpoint was the combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS) up to 48 weeks. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03505021) and has been completed. An extension study (REFALS-ES; NCT03948178) has also been completed, but will be reported separately. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 28, 2019, 871 people were screened for the study, of whom 496 were randomly assigned either levosimendan (n=329) or placebo (n=167). Participants were followed up between June 27, 2018 and June 26, 2020, for a median duration of 50·1 (IQR 37·5-51·1) weeks. The median duration of treatment was 47·9 (IQR 26·4-48·1) weeks. Change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks was -6·73% with levosimendan and -6·99% with placebo, with no significant difference between the treatments (estimated treatment difference 0·26%, 95% CI -2·03 to 2·55, p=0·83). Similarly, at week 48, CAFS did not differ between treatment groups (least squares mean change from baseline 10·69, 95% CI -15·74 to 37·12; nominal p value=0·43). The most frequent adverse events were increased heart rate (106 [33%] of 326 receiving levosimendan vs 12 [7%] of 166 receiving placebo), fall (85 [26%] vs 48 [29%]), headache (93 [29%] vs 36 [22%]), and dyspnoea (59 [18%] vs 32 [19%]). 33 (10%) participants allocated levosimendan and 20 (12%) assigned placebo died during the trial, mainly due to respiratory failure or progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. INTERPRETATION: Levosimendan was not superior to placebo in maintaining respiratory function in a broad population with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Although levosimendan was generally well tolerated, increased heart rate and headache occurred more frequently with levosimendan than with placebo. The possibility of a clinically relevant subgroup of responsive individuals requires further evaluation. FUNDING: Orion Corporation.

Darolutamide and health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: An analysis of the phase III ARAMIS trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ARAMIS trial, darolutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS) and time to pain progression in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Herein, we present analyses of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial randomised patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen doubling time ≤10 months to darolutamide 600 mg (n = 955) twice daily or matched placebo (n = 554) while continuing ADT. The primary end-point was MFS; the secondary end-points included OS and time to pain progression. In this analysis, HRQoL was assessed by the time to deterioration using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) prostate cancer subscale (PCS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) subscales. RESULTS: Darolutamide significantly prolonged time to deterioration of FACT-P PCS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.91; P = 0.0005) at the primary analysis (cut-off date: 3rd September 2018). Time to deterioration of EORTC QLQ-PR25 outcomes showed statistically significant delays with darolutamide versus placebo for urinary (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.76; P < 0.0001) and bowel (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0027) symptoms. Time to worsening of hormonal treatment-related symptoms was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with nmCRPC who are generally asymptomatic, darolutamide maintained HRQoL by significantly delaying time to deterioration of prostate cancer-specific quality of life and disease-related symptoms versus placebo.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use.

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Oral levosimendan in patients with severe chronic heart failure --the PERSIST study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous levosimendan improves symptoms in acutely decompensated heart failure. AIMS: To evaluate the effects of oral levosimendan in severe chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS: 307 patients with NYHA IIIB-IV CHF were randomly assigned, double-blind, to levosimendan 1 mg once or twice daily or placebo for at least 180 days. An exploratory primary end-point, the Patient Journey, a composite consisting of repeated symptom assessments, worsening heart failure and mortality during 60 days was used. Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life score (MLHFQoL) and NT-proBNP were assessed repeatedly. RESULTS: Patients assigned to a lower dose of levosimendan had more severe CHF at baseline. No differences in symptoms emerged and worsening heart failure events and death were similar resulting in a similar Patient Journey score with levosimendan and placebo (p=0.567). Compared to placebo, a net improvement of 3-4 points in MLHFQoL at several time-points in favour of the combined levosimendan groups was observed (p<0.001) which was accompanied by a substantial and persistent reduction in NT-proBNP (-30-40%) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Levosimendan improved QoL and decreased NT-proBNP but did not improve the Patient Journey composite in patients with severe CHF. Further research with this compound is warranted to clarify safety and efficacy.

Effect of Sedation Regimen on Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit patients undergoing mechanical ventilation have traditionally been sedated to make them comfortable and to avoid pain and anxiety. However, this may lead to prolonged mechanical ventilation and a longer length of stay. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to explore whether different sedation regimens influence the course and duration of the weaning process. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intubated adult patients (n = 152) from 15 general intensive care units in Sweden were mechanically ventilated for ≥ 24 h. Patients were divided into three groups according to the sedative(s) received during the weaning period (i.e. from being assessed as 'fit for weaning' until extubation): dexmedetomidine alone (DEX group, n = 32); standard of care with midazolam and/or propofol (SOC group, n = 67); or SOC plus dexmedetomidine (SOCDEX group, n = 53). RESULTS: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine alone were weaned more rapidly than those in the other groups despite spending longer time on mechanical ventilation prior to weaning. Anxiety during weaning was present in 0, 9 and 24% patients in the DEX, SOC and SOCDEX groups, respectively. Anxiety after extubation was present in 41, 20 and 34% in the DEX, SOC and SOCDEX groups, respectively. Delirium during weaning was present in 1, 2 and 1 patient in the DEX, SOC and SOCDEX groups, respectively. Delirium at ICU discharge was present in 1, 0 and 3 patients in the DEX, SOC and SOCDEX groups, respectively. Few patients fulfilled criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine, used as a single sedative, may have contributed to a shorter weaning period than SOC or SOCDEX. Patients who received dexmedetomidine-only sedation tended to report better health-related quality of life than those receiving other forms of sedation.