Targeting GPVI with glenzocimab in COVID-19 patients: Results from a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Glenzocimab is a novel antithrombotic agent which targets platelet glycoprotein VI (GPVI) and does not induce haemorrhage. SARS-CoV-2 triggers a prothrombotic state and lung injury whose mechanisms include coagulopathy, endothelial dysfunction, and inflammation with dysregulated platelets. METHODS AND PATIENTS: GARDEN was a randomised double-blind, exploratory phase II study of glenzocimab in SARS-CoV-2 respiratory failure (NCT04659109). PCR+ adults in Brazil and France (7 centres) were randomized to standard-of-care (SOC) plus glenzocimab (1000 mg/dayx3 days) or placebo, followed for 40 days. Primary efficacy endpoint was clinical progression at Day 4. All analyses concerned the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and August 2021, 61 patients received at least one dose (30 glenzocimab vs 32 placebo) and 58 completed the study (29 vs 29). Clinical progression of COVID-19 ARDS was not statistically different between glenzocimab and placebo arms (43.3% and 29.0%, respectively; p = 0.245). Decrease in the NEWS-2 category at D4 was statistically significant (p = 0.0290) in the glenzocimab arm vs placebo. No Serious Adverse Event (SAE) was deemed related to study drug; bleeding related events were reported in 6 patients (7 events) and 4 patients (4 events) in glenzocimab and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic GPVI inhibition assessment during COVID-19 was conducted in response to a Public Health emergency. Glenzocimab in coagulopathic patients under therapeutic heparin was neither associated with increased bleeding, nor SAE. Clinical impact of glenzocimab on COVID-19 ARDS was not demonstrated. A potential role for GPVI inhibition in other types of ARDS deserves further experimentation. Glenzocimab is currently studied in stroke (ACTISAVE: NCT05070260) and cardiovascular indications.

Relative Bioavailability Study of Midazolam Intramuscularly Administered with the Needle-Free Auto-Injector ZENEO® in Healthy Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Intramuscular (IM) midazolam is indicated for the treatment of status epilepticus. Administration must be efficient to rapidly terminate prolonged seizures and prevent complications. The objective of this study was to compare, in terms of relative bioavailability and bioequivalence, IM midazolam injection by needle-free auto-injector, in different settings, to IM midazolam injection by a conventional syringe and needle. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, four-period crossover study, healthy adults received single doses of midazolam (10 mg) under fasting conditions. The reference treatment (conventional syringe) was administered once, on bare skin in the thigh. The tested treatment (the needle-free auto-injector ZENEO®) was administered three times: on bare skin in the thigh, on bare skin in the ventrogluteal area, and through clothing in the thigh. Repeated plasma samples were collected to obtain 36-h pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles. Primary PK parameters were area under the plasma concentration-time curve, from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUC0-t) and from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), and the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax). RESULTS: Forty adults were enrolled and included in the PK analysis set. In all comparisons, the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the least-squares geometric mean ratios for AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were within the bioequivalence range of 80-125%, with low intra-individual coefficients of variation (< 20.5% for all parameters in all comparisons). Bioequivalence was also met for Cmax in all comparisons except when comparing the tested treatment through clothing versus the reference treatment, where the 90% CI lower limit was slightly outside the bioequivalence range (78.8%). With all tested treatments Cmax was slightly lower, but early mean plasma concentrations (first 10 min post-dosing) were higher when compared to the reference treatment. In general, all treatments were well tolerated, with maximum sedation 0.5-1 h post-injection. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study establishes that IM midazolam injection on bare skin in the thigh with the ZENEO® is bioequivalent to IM midazolam injection with a syringe and needle. An acceptable relative bioavailability, compatible with emergency practice, was also shown in multiple settings. Higher mean concentrations within the first 10 min with the ZENEO® device, and quicker two-step injection suggest a faster onset of action, and thereby an earlier seizure termination, thus preventing the occurrence of prolonged seizure and neurological complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05026567. Registration first posted August 30, 2021, first patient enrolled May 9, 2022.

Seizures require urgent treatment when they last longer than 5 min. Indeed, when prolonged, seizures can lead to damage to the brain, coma, and ultimately death. Midazolam injected in the muscle (i.e., intramuscular (IM) injection) has become the first-line treatment of choice for long-lasting seizures and is usually administered with a syringe and 30-mm needle. The ZENEO^® needle-free auto-injector is an innovative, pre-filled, single-dose, disposable, ready-to-use, two-step device that could become an alternative method for midazolam IM administration. This study therefore compared midazolam IM injections with the ZENEO^® auto-injector versus IM injections with a conventional syringe and needle. The ZENEO^® auto-injector was tested in different conditions (on bare skin, through clothing, in the thigh, and in the hip) in healthy volunteers. The study showed, with a pharmacokinetic analysis (how much and how fast a drug is taken in the bloodstream), that midazolam absorption was similar in all tested conditions, indicating that the ZENEO^® auto-injector is a suitable method for midazolam administration. In addition, the study showed that in the first 10 min of the injection, the amount of midazolam in the blood seemed to be higher when injections were performed with the ZENEO^® auto-injector, suggesting that seizure treatment may start working sooner if injected with the device. This is particularly important and relevant in emergency situations and prehospital settings in order to prevent long-lasting seizures and irreversible damage to the brain (which can occur when a crisis lasts for 30 min) and ultimately improve the patient's outcome.

Safety and efficacy of platelet glycoprotein VI inhibition in acute ischaemic stroke (ACTIMIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2a trial.

BACKGROUND: Antagonists of glycoprotein VI-triggered platelet activation used in combination with recanalisation therapies are a promising therapeutic approach in acute ischaemic stroke. Glenzocimab is an antibody fragment that inhibits the action of platelet glycoprotein VI. We aimed to determine and assess the safety and efficacy of the optimal dose of glenzocimab in patients with acute ischaemic stroke eligible to receive alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with dose-escalation (1b) and dose-confirmation (2a) phases (ACTIMIS) was done in 26 stroke centres in six European countries. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with disabling acute ischaemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6 or higher before alteplase administration. Patients were randomly assigned treatment using a central electronic procedure. Total administered dose at the end of the intravenous administration was 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 1b and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 2a. Treatment was initiated 4·5 h or earlier from stroke symptom onset in patients treated with alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. The sponsor, study investigator and study staff, patients, and central laboratories were all masked to study treatment until database lock. Primary endpoints across both phases were safety, mortality, and intracranial haemorrhage (symptomatic, total, and fatal), assessed in all patients who received at least a partial dose of study medication (safety set). The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03803007, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2019, and June 27, 2021, 60 recruited patients were randomly assigned to 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg glenzocimab, or to placebo in phase 1b (n=12 per group) and were included in the safety analysis. Glenzocimab 1000 mg was well tolerated and selected as the phase 2a recommended dose; from Oct 2, 2020, to June 27, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to glenzocimab 1000 mg (n=53) or placebo (n=53). One patient in the placebo group received glenzocimab in error and therefore 54 and 52, respectively, were included in the safety set. In phase 2a, the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was non-symptomatic haemorrhagic transformation, which occurred in 17 (31%) of 54 patients treated with glenzocimab and 26 (50%) of 52 patients treated with placebo. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in no patients treated with glenzocimab compared with five (10%) patients in the placebo group. All-cause deaths were lower with glenzocimab 1000 mg (four [7%] patients) than with placebo (11 [21%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Glenzocimab 1000 mg in addition to alteplase, with or without mechanical thrombectomy, was well tolerated, and might reduce serious adverse events, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality. These findings support the need for future research into the potential therapeutic inhibition of glycoprotein VI with glenzocimab plus alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. FUNDING: Acticor Biotech.

Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Glenzocimab (ACT017) a Glycoprotein VI Inhibitor of Collagen-Induced Platelet Aggregation.

Glenzocimab (ACT017) is a humanized monoclonal antigen-binding fragment (Fab) directed against the human platelet glycoprotein VI, a key receptor for collagen and fibrin that plays a major role in thrombus growth and stability. Glenzocimab is being developed as an antiplatelet agent to treat the acute phase of ischemic stroke. During a phase I study in healthy volunteers, the population pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of glenzocimab were modeled using Monolix software. The PK/PD model thus described glenzocimab plasma concentrations and its effects on ex vivo collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Glenzocimab was found to have dose-proportional, 2-compartmental PK with a central distribution volume of 4.1 L, and first and second half-lives of 0.84 and 9.6 hours. Interindividual variability in clearance in healthy volunteers was mainly explained by its dependence on body weight. The glenzocimab effect was described using an immediate effect model with a dose-dependent half maximal inhibitory concentration: Larger doses resulted in a stronger effect at the same glenzocimab plasma concentration. The mechanism of the overproportional concentration effect at higher doses remained unexplained. PK/PD simulations predicted that 1000-mg glenzocimab given as a 6-hour infusion reduced platelet aggregation to 20% in 100% of subjects at 6 hours and in 60% of subjects at 12 hours after dosing. Simulations revealed a limited impact of creatinine clearance on exposure, suggesting that no dose adjustments were required with respect to renal function. Future studies in patients with ischemic stroke are now needed to establish the relationship between ex vivo platelet aggregation and the clinical effect.

Safety and Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of ACT017, an Antiplatelet GPVI (Glycoprotein VI) Fab.

Objective- ACT017 is a novel, first in class, therapeutic antibody to platelet GPVI (glycoprotein VI) with potent and selective antiplatelet effects. This first-in-human, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1 study was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ACT017 in healthy subjects. Approach and Results- Six cohorts of 8 healthy male and female subjects each received ascending single doses of ACT017 (n=6) or placebo (n=2) as a 6-hour intravenous infusion, with » of the total dose administered within 15 minutes and the rest of the dose (¾ of the total dose) administered within 5 hours and 45 minutes. The 6 investigated doses ranged from 62.5 to 2000 mg. All doses of ACT017 were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events occurred during the study. None of the subjects reported an infusion site reaction. Template bleeding time was not affected in a clinically significant manner by any of the ACT017 doses. Plasma concentrations, determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, increased linearly with the dose received as were the established pharmacokinetics values. There was no change in the platelet count, platelet GPVI expression assessed by flow cytometry, or plasma levels of soluble GPVI assessed by ELISA. In contrast, administration of ACT017 inhibited collagen-induced platelet aggregation measured by light transmission aggregometry on platelet-rich plasma, and the extent and duration of the effect were dose-dependent. Conclusions- The novel antiplatelet agent ACT017 has consistent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties and favorable safety and tolerability profiles warranting further clinical development.

Pharmacoepidemiology studies: what levels of evidence and how can they be reached?

In pharmacoepidemiology studies, the nature of the research question will dictate the choice of methodological approach and the conditions for optimizing the level of evidence. Thus, to document the treated population and the modes of use of a new drug in real-life prescribing conditions, a descriptive approach through cross-sectional or longitudinal studies conducted on databases, or else ad-hoc studies, will be preferred. On the other hand, evaluation of the real-life "effectiveness" of a new drug will be based on cohort, case-control or scientific modeling, depending on the drug and the disease of interest. For questions involving drug risks and safety, it is the adverse effects profile that will guide the choice of study design, both for identification of the effect (signal) and assessment of causation. In all cases, in the post-marketing authorization (MA) setting, the evidence acquired in pre-MA studies serves as the basis for generating hypotheses. Whatever the research question and the method chosen to address it, the potential biases and their impact on the results need to be identified. In certain cases, a combination of several complementary approaches may prove preferable to a single study.

[Attractiveness of France for international clinical trials in 2012: 6(th) survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / État des lieux 2012 de l'attractivité de la France pour la recherche clinique internationale : 6(e) enquête du Leem.

Since 2002, the Leem (French Association of Pharmaceutical Companies) has conducted a survey every two years to update the attractiveness of France for international clinical trials. Thirty companies (68% of the French market) have participated in this 6(th) survey which involved 79 countries, a greater number of Phases I/II, II and III studies (420 versus 352 in 2010), a relatively stable number of included patients (246,895 versus 249,704 in 2010) and a greater number of centers (32,965 versus 24,337 in 2010). The evolution of time-lines for the go-ahead by French Authorities is heterogeneous (shorter time-lines by the French National Agency of Drug and Health Products Safety [ANSM] but longer time-lines by Research Ethics Comittees [CPP]). The time-lines for first hospital contracts remain stable. France ranks at an average position among European countries in regards to quantitative and qualitative data, and its state-of-art in early stages is still recognized. Its good performance in oncology and orphan diseases are major assets of competitiveness.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2010 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / Place de la France dans la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2010 du Leem France et recherche clinique internationale.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Twenty-nine companies (72% of the French market) including 10 newly participants, have participated in the current survey which included 328 international phase II and III clinical studies, 79 countries, 24,337 centres and 249,704 patients (included in 2008/2009). France (291 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2008, protocols are still to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. The continuation of reduction in deadlines for hospital contracts is encouraging and highlights the positive effect of CeNGEPS. French state-of-art is well recognized in Oncology/Hematology and Orphan disease which could be an example to improve the competitiveness of France in other key therapeutic areas such as Alzheimer's disease and Immuno-Inflammation.

Clinical Trials Legislation - preparing for the revision of the European Directive Scheduled for 2011.

The aim of the Round Table was to make recommendations with regard to the imminent revision of the European Directive on clinical drug trials (2001/20/CE). While recognising the importance of compliance with this Directive, which is not optimal in some member states of the European Union, it would be constructive to simplify further and harmonise its application in every country. Without necessarily resorting to a revision, some of the Directive's dispositions could be improved, such as the definition of "investigational medicinal products" (IMP) and what should be considered as "substantial amendements", as well as harmonising and improving the way in which Ethics Committees are run, either on a European Commission level, or by relying more on the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) which already exists in several European member states. Other points in the Directive do require revision, especially those relating to: the definition of the respective roles of Ethics Committees and Competent Authorities, the simplification of safety information to Ethics Committees (giving them access to the Eudravigilance database for adverse reactions occurring during clinical trials and providing them with only new safety issues or with a summary of the Annual Safety Report), the possibility of one single European authorisation for the trial, centralised and/or decentralised, when the trial is multinational. The recommended changes could be made within the scope of a European Regulation, avoiding the need to transpose it at a later date into each country's regulations, which is a source of possible lack of harmonisation. More specifically, for trials with institutional sponsors and/or investigator driven trials such as "drug therapy strategy trials", modulating restrictions according to the "risk added by the research" would enable the trial's organisation to be simplified regarding monitoring, adverse reactions reporting and study drugs labelling.

How to improve clinical research performances in France?

UNLABELLED: The general objective of this study was to proceed an inventory of measures which could help to improve the efficiency of clinical research in France. METHOD: Thanks to the discussion between the members of the round-table conference (composed of medical doctors (MD)/investigators; hospital managers; representatives of industrial promoters; general practitioners...), we have looked over the difficulties that meets clinical research in France nowadays. RESULTS: We identified four fields of action: 1) availability of resources for carrying out the trials in time and in quality; 2) feasibility of the clinical trials, in their design and for the recruitment which depends on both of the investigation centers and patients (what is the image of human testing in the society?); 3) skills and motivation of all the elements of staffs in charge of clinical trials (MD; nurses; and the new jobs in medical research); 4) promptness and efficiency of the administrative organisation for a fast starting up of the trials. CONCLUSION: This study, which doesn't pretend to sufficiency, shows the gap of improvement for French clinical trials organisation.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2008 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

[Not Available]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

[The attractive position of France in international clinical research: 2006 survey assessed by Leem (French pharmaceutical companies)]. / La France est un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale: enquête 2006 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Initiated in 2006, the current survey was much more representative than the previous ones with 20 companies accounting for 61% of the French market. This survey included 352 international phase II and III clinical studies carried out in 2004 and 2005, 74 countries, 17 345 centres and 137 989 patients. France has participated to half of the overall number of international clinical trials. France ranked among the best European recruiters (0,19 patient/1000 inhabitants) at the second position behind Scandinavian countries, taking in account numbers of inhabitants. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by Ethics Committee (CCPPRB) within 60 days. With a high productivity in phase IIb and in oncology, France is still an attractive place to locate clinical research.

[Not Available]. / La France est un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2006 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Initiated in 2006, the current survey was much more representative than the previous ones with 20 companies accounting for 61% of the French market. This survey included 352 international phase II and III clinical studies carried out in 2004 and 2005, 74 countries, 17 345 centres and 137 989 patients. France has participated to half of the overall number of international clinical trials. France ranked among the best European recruiters (0,19 patient/1000 inhabitants) at the second position behind Scandinavian countries, taking in account numbers of inhabitants. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by Ethics Committee (CCPPRB) within 60 days. With a high productivity in phase IIb and in oncology, France is still an attractive place to locate clinical research.

Adaptation of the clinical trials directive: recommendations on the contents of a dossier for the request for authorisation of the first trials in human subjects.

The European Directive on clinical trials of medicinal products will fall within the scope of the legislation of Member States on 1 May 2004. In France, this adaptation will be carried out by a public health bill concerning, among other things, the reform of the current Huriet-Sérusclat law, and by means of regulations. For trials concerning the initial administration of a product to human subjects, the group suggested the following recommendations: In French texts, to include a deadline of 30 days for the initial authorisation by the competent authority (Afssaps [Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé]). To maintain an observed deadline of 20 days (35 official days) for the decision of the Ethics Committee (EC) [Committee for the Protection of Persons (CPP)]. To obtain a more specific evaluation of the pharmaceutical dossier of the investigational medicinal product (IMP) from the competent authority. To provide both bodies with nonclinical and possibly clinical data concerning the IMP information of the participants and their consent. To follow the recommendations posted on the Afssaps website for the entire IMP dossier. To submit a protocol under the International Committee on Harmonisation (ICH) E6 format adapted for phase I and, possibly as a separate document, justification of a certain number of points (a total of ten) that are more specific to this trial phase to facilitate and improve the document review while also providing the expected guarantees. To limit the 'substantial' amendments to those provided for in the European guidelines. To break the blind for every serious event reported to the sponsor by the investigator, and report to the competent authority any serious adverse event related to the IMP or to the trial or without documented cause, while keeping ECs and investigators informed. Furthermore, certain points concerning the authorisations for packaging, labelling and dispensing of the batches of medicinal products for clinical trials will need to be specified for these early studies. All these recommendations are intended to help promote the development of studies involving the initial administration of medicinal products in France.