Efficacy and safety of iscalimab, a novel anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, in moderate-to-severe myasthenia gravis: A phase 2 randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Increased morbidity in many patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) on long-term immunosuppression highlights the need for improved treatments. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of iscalimab (CFZ533), a fully human anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe MG receiving standard-of-care (SoC) therapies. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, symptomatic patients (n = 44) despite SoC were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous iscalimab (10 mg/kg; n = 22) or placebo (n = 22) every 4 weeks for 6 doses in total. Patients were followed up for 6 months after the last dose. The total duration of the study was 52 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 34 of 44 patients (77.3 %) completed the study. The primary endpoint, Quantitative MG score, did not change significantly between baseline and week 25 for iscalimab (median [90 % CI], -4.07 [-5.67, -2.47]) versus placebo (-2.93 [-4.53, -1.33]); however, non-thymectomized patients (n = 29) showed more favorable results (iscalimab, -4.35 [-6.07, -2.64] vs placebo, -2.26 [-4.16, -0.36]). A statistically significant difference between iscalimab and placebo groups was observed in MG Composite score (adjusted mean change: -4.19 [-6.67, -1.72]; p = 0.007) at week 13, and MG-Activities of Daily Living score (-1.93 [-3.24, -0.62]; p = 0.018) at week 21. Adverse events were comparable between the iscalimab (91 %) and placebo (96 %) groups. CONCLUSION: Iscalimab showed favorable safety and improvements compared with placebo in non-thymectomized patients with moderate-to-severe MG. It did not show any protective effect in patients with moderate-to-severe MG.

Survey of diagnostic and treatment practices for multiple sclerosis in Russian Federation in comparison to European data.

INTRODUCTION: The data of the survey of European (EU) neurologists on the methods of diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis in Europe were compared with the data of the similar survey of neurologists of the Russian Federation (RF). METHOD: Seventy-five neurologists specialized in MS from RF completed questionnaires on radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS), clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting (RRMS), secondary progressive (SPMS), and primary progressive (PPMS) multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: In the case of RIS, only 46% of neurologists from the RF recommended CSF analysis for oligoclonal IgG and only 54.3% performed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spinal cord, which is significantly lower than in the EU (78% and 80%, respectively). In the case of CIS, significantly more neurologists from the Russian Federation would have tested for antibodies to disorders of the optical spectrum of neuromyelitis (57% in the EU and 94% in the RF). In case of typical RRMS, more neurologists from the RF preferred to start with the second line of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), a lower percentage would choose dimethyl fumarate as the first line DMT (9% in the RF and 25% in the EU). In case of escalating therapy, the majority of EU respondents (68%) indicated that one relapse would be sufficient (only 28% in RF), while in RF, 58% indicated that two relapses would be sufficient (22% in EU). Fewer neurologists from RF would use fingolimod, natalizumab or mitoxantrone for SPMS. 91% of neurologists in RF would like to prescribe ocrelizumab for PPMS. CONCLUSION: MS specialists from RF are less active in monitoring RIS than MS specialists from EU. CIS is not indication to use any DMT in RF. MS specialists in RF are more conservative in changing DMT as escalation in cases with breakthrough RRMS. The products without indication to be used in SPMS are rarely prescribed in RF in comparison to EU. Most cases of PPMS in RF would be treated with ocrelizumab.

Treatment of Cognitive Impairment and the Role of Demographic Factors in Disease Progression: The Final Results of the Russian Observational Program "DIAMANT".

BACKGROUND: Chronic cerebral ischemia (CCI) is a form of cerebrovascular disease manifested as a vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). The management of the patients with CCI is determined by a healthy lifestyle and early therapy aimed at correcting and preventing this disease. Divaza is a drug with endothelial protective and nootropic effects. We present the final efficacy and safety analysis of all-Russian, open-label, prospective, observational, multicenter study of Divaza and emphasize the role of demographic and socioeconomic factors in cognitive disorder (CD) progression. METHODS: CCI patients (n = 2,583) with or without CD were enrolled. Patients received Divaza (2 tablets 3 times per day for 12 weeks). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) testing was required. The change in the mean MoCA score post-treatment was used as the primary endpoint. As the secondary endpoints, the number of patients with a MoCA <26 and ≤17 (dementia); the percentage of patients with a MoCA score improvement in different age groups; the dynamics of mean MoCA score in age groups; and the relationship between CD and sex or regional social/economic factors were assessed. RESULTS: Divaza therapy led to a significant improvement: the mean MoCA score was up to 20% higher post-treatment (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). The number of participants with MoCA ≥26 increased by 33.6%. The number of patients with dementia was 4.1 times less after therapy (p < 0.00001 vs. baseline). Divaza improved cognitive functions of patients in each age group. Findings demonstrate that regional socioeconomic factors contribute to CD development and severity. The observed divergence between sexes was a result of a larger number of women enrolled. The study confirmed the safety of Divaza. CONCLUSIONS: In the study, we observed the efficacy of Divaza for the treatment of CD: a therapy contributed to an increase in the mean MoCA score and the positive dynamics in the number of patients with cognitive improvement.

Safety and efficacy of pitolisant on cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Histaminergic neurons are crucial to maintain wakefulness, but their role in cataplexy is unknown. We assessed the safety and efficacy of pitolisant, a histamine H3 receptor inverse agonist, for treatment of cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy. METHODS: For this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we recruited patients with narcolepsy from 16 sleep centres in nine countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine). Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with narcolepsy with cataplexy according to version two of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders criteria, experienced at least three cataplexies per week, and had excessive daytime sleepiness (defined as an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥12). We used a computer-generated sequence via an interactive web response system to randomly assign patients to receive either pitolisant or placebo once per day (1:1 ratio). Randomisation was done in blocks of four. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment lasted for 7 weeks: 3 weeks of flexible dosing decided by investigators according to efficacy and tolerance (5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg oral pitolisant), followed by 4 weeks of stable dosing (5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg). The primary endpoint was the change in the average number of cataplexy attacks per week as recorded in patient diaries (weekly cataplexy rate [WCR]) between the 2 weeks of baseline and the 4 weeks of stable dosing period. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01800045. FINDINGS: The trial was done between April 19, 2013, and Jan 28, 2015. We screened 117 patients, 106 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (54 to pitolisant and 52 to placebo) and, after dropout, 54 patients from the pitolisant group and 51 from the placebo group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The WCR during the stable dosing period compared with baseline was decreased by 75% (WCRfinal=2·27; WCRbaseline=9·15; WCRfinal/baseline=0·25) in patients who received pitolisant and 38% (WCRfinal=4·52; WCRbaseline=7·31; WCRfinal/baseline=0·62) in patients who received placebo (rate ratio 0·512; 95% CI 0·43-0·60, p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events were significantly more common in the pitolisant group than in the placebo group (15 [28%] of 54 vs 6 [12%] of 51; p=0·048). There were no serious adverse events, but one case of severe nausea in the pitolisant group. The most frequent adverse events in the pitolisant group (headache, irritability, anxiety, and nausea) were mild or moderate except one case of severe nausea. No withdrawal syndrome was detected following pitolisant treatment; one case was detected in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing cataplexy. If confirmed in long-term studies, pitolisant might constitute a useful first-line therapy for cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy, for whom there are currently few therapeutic options. FUNDING: Bioprojet, France.

Adjunctive lamotrigine XR for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine extended-release (XR) for primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures in epilepsy were evaluated. Patients (n = 153) ≥ 13 years old diagnosed with epilepsy with PGTC seizures were randomized to once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine XR or placebo in a double-blind, parallel-group trial comprising a baseline phase, a 7-week double-blind escalation phase, and a 12-week double-blind maintenance phase. Lamotrigine XR was more effective than placebo with respect to median percentage reduction from baseline in weekly PGTC seizure frequency (primary endpoint-19-week treatment phase: 75.4% vs 32.1%, P<0.0001; escalation phase: 61.9% vs 30.6%, P = 0.0016; maintenance phase: 89.7% vs 33.3%, P<0.0001). Lamotrigine XR was more effective than placebo with respect to the percentage of patients with ≥50% reduction in PGTC seizure frequency. Significant separation from placebo for ≥50% reduction in PGTC seizures was observed beginning on treatment day 8. The most common adverse event was headache (lamotrigine XR 14%, placebo 16%).