Fezolinetant impact on health-related quality of life for vasomotor symptoms due to the menopause: Pooled data from SKYLIGHT 1 and SKYLIGHT 2 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of fezolinetant treatment on health-related quality of life using pooled data from SKYLIGHT 1 and 2 studies. DESIGN: Prespecified pooled analysis. SETTING: USA, Canada, Europe; 2019-2021. POPULATION: 1022 women aged ≥40 to ≤65 years with moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS; minimum average seven hot flushes/day), seeking treatment for VMS. METHODS: Women were randomised to 12-week double-blind treatment with once-daily placebo or fezolinetant 30 or 45 mg. Completers entered a 40-week, active extension (those receiving fezolinetant continued that dose; those receiving placebo re-randomised to fezolinetant received 30 or 45 mg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean changes from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 on Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQoL) total and domain scores, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire specific to VMS (WPAI-VMS) domain scores, Patient Global Impression of Change in VMS (PGI-C VMS); percentages achieving PGI-C VMS of 'much better' (PGI-C VMS responders). Mean reduction was estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Fezolinetant 45 mg mean reduction over placebo in MENQoL total score was -0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75 to -0.39) at week 4 and -0.47 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.28) at week 12. Reductions were similar for 30 mg. MENQoL domain scores were also reduced and WPAI-VMS scores improved. Twice as many women receiving fezolinetant reported VMS were 'much better' than placebo based on PGI-C VMS assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Fezolinetant treatment was associated with improvement in overall QoL, measured by MENQoL, and work productivity, measured by WPAI-VMS. A high proportion receiving fezolinetant felt VMS were 'much better' based on PGI-C VMS responder analysis.

Effect of fezolinetant on sleep disturbance and impairment during treatment of vasomotor symptoms due to menopause.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effect of fezolinetant on patient-reported sleep disturbance and impairment in individuals with vasomotor symptoms (VMS) using pooled data from the SKYLIGHT 1 and 2 studies. STUDY DESIGN: The SKYLIGHT studies were phase-3, double-blind investigations. Individuals (≥40-≤65 years) who were assigned female at birth and seeking treatment of/relief from moderate-to-severe VMS were enrolled. Participants were randomised to receive placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg, or fezolinetant 45 mg during a 12-week treatment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sleep assessments: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance - Short Form 8b (PROMIS SD SF 8b), PROMIS Sleep-Related Impairment - Short Form 8a (PROMIS SRI SF 8a), and Patient Global Impression of Change/Severity in SD (PGI-C SD and PGI-S SD). Assessments were completed at baseline (except PGI-C SD), weeks 4 and 12. RESULTS: Overall, 1022 individuals were randomised and took ≥1 dose of study drug. PROMIS SD SF 8b results showed that improvements in sleep disturbance were observed for fezolinetant 30 and 45 mg versus placebo (week 12, least squares [LS] mean differences: -0.6 [95 % confidence interval [CI]: -1.7, 0.4] for 30 mg and -1.5 [-2.5, -0.5] for 45 mg). Similar improvements in sleep impairment were reported using the PROMIS SRI SF 8a (week 12, LS mean differences: -1.1 [95 % CI: -2.1, -0.1] for 30 mg and -1.3 [-2.3, -0.3] for 45 mg). For PGI-C SD at week 12, 33.6 % (98/292 participants) of the placebo group felt much/moderately better versus 40.1 % (110/274) and 51.0 % (154/302) of the fezolinetant 30 mg and 45 mg groups, respectively. For PGI-S SD at week 12, 44.0 % (129/293) of the placebo group had severe/moderate problems versus 41.1 % (113/275) and 36.6 % (111/303) of the fezolinetant 30 mg and 45 mg groups, respectively. The 12-week timeframe for this analysis was limited by the length of the placebo-controlled period. CONCLUSIONS: Fezolinetant had a beneficial effect on four measures of sleep disturbance and impairment following treatment for VMS.

Cethromycin versus clarithromycin for community-acquired pneumonia: comparative efficacy and safety outcomes from two double-blinded, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, multinational noninferiority studies.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a major health challenge in the United States and globally. Factors such as overprescribing of antibiotics and noncompliance with dosing regimens have added to the growing antibacterial resistance problem. In addition, several agents available for the treatment of CAP have been associated with serious side effects. Cethromycin is a new ketolide antibiotic that may provide prescribing physicians with an additional agent to supplement a continually limited armamentarium. Two global phase III noninferiority studies (CL05-001 and CL06-001) to evaluate cethromycin safety and efficacy were designed and conducted in patients with mild to moderate CAP. Study CL05-001 demonstrated an 83.1% clinical cure rate in the cethromycin group compared with 81.1% in the clarithromycin group (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.8%, +8.9%) in the intent to treat (ITT) population and a 94.0% cethromycin clinical cure rate compared with a 93.8% clarithromycin cure rate (95% CI, -4.5%, +5.1%) in the per protocol clinical (PPc) population. Study CL06-001 achieved an 82.9% cethromycin clinical cure rate in the ITT population compared with an 88.5% clarithromycin cure rate (95% CI, -11.9%, +0.6%), whereas the clinical cure rate in the PPc population was 91.5% in cethromycin group compared with 95.9% in clarithromycin group (95% CI, -9.1%, +0.3%). Both studies met the primary endpoints for clinical cure rate based on predefined, sliding-scale noninferiority design. Therefore, in comparison with clarithromycin, these two noninferiority studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of cethromycin, with encouraging findings of efficacy in subjects with Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteremia. No clinically significant adverse events were observed during the studies. Cethromycin may be a potential oral therapy for the outpatient treatment of CAP.

A Retrospective, Single-Center Comparative Cost Analysis of OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA for Cervical Dystonia Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chemodenervation with botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) is recommended as first-line treatment for the management of cervical dystonia. The choice of BoNT for treatment is subject to the consideration of several factors, including cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs incurred by patients and payers for onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) or abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) for the treatment of cervical dystonia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, noninterventional closed cohort study of cervical dystonia patients within a single U.S. private neurological practice. Patient and payer incurred costs from medical billing records for patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria treated from November 1, 2009, through January 1, 2013, were de-identified and included in the analysis. Forty-seven patients initially treated with at least 3 consecutive cycles of ONA, followed by at least 3 consecutive cycles of ABO were included, representing 282 injection cycles available for analysis. Patients were required to have had a positive response to treatment with both agents and no concomitant treatment with BoNT for any other condition during the analysis period. The analysis compared the primary endpoint of median overall payer and patient incurred costs reimbursed to the clinic under each treatment regimen. For the purposes of this cost analysis, comparable clinical outcomes on both therapies was assumed.   RESULTS: Switching from ONA to ABO resulted in an overall incurred reimbursement cost savings for payers and patients. Median costs per injection cycle for ONA were $1,925 ($0-$2,814) compared with $1,214 ($229-$2,899; P less than 0.0001) for ABO, representing an approximate 37% reduction in incurred reimbursement costs inclusive of toxin and procedure. Overall toxin reimbursement costs, patient out-of-pocket toxin costs, and the cost of unavoidable waste were also lower when patients were treated with ABO.  CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated for cervical dystonia, switching from ONA to ABO resulted in payer and patient reimbursement cost reductions in a single U.S. private practice with outcomes assumed to be similar.