Dual Vasopressin Receptor Antagonism to Improve Congestion in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Design of the AVANTI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are the main treatment for patients with acute heart failure, but are associated with neurohormonal stimulation and worsening renal function and do not improve long-term outcomes. Antagonists to arginine vasopressin may provide an alternative strategy to avoid these effects. The AVANTI study will investigate the efficacy and safety of pecavaptan, a novel, balanced dual-acting V1a/V2 vasopressin antagonist, both as adjunctive therapy to loop diuretics after admission for acute heart failure, and later as monotherapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: AVANTI is a double-blind, randomized phase II study in 571 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and signs of persistent congestion before discharge. In part A, patients will receive either pecavaptan 30 mg/d or placebo with standard of care for 30 days. In part B, eligible patients will continue treatment or receive pecavaptan or diuretics as monotherapy for another 30 days. The primary end points for part A are changes in body weight and serum creatinine; for part B, changes in body weight and blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide the first evidence that a balanced V1a/V2 antagonist may safely enhance decongestion, both as an adjunct to loop diuretics and as an alternative strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03901729.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Molidustat for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease: DIALOGUE Extension Studies.

BACKGROUND: Molidustat, a novel hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, is being investigated for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The efficacy and safety of molidustat were recently evaluated in three 16-week phase 2b studies. Here, we report the results of two long-term extension studies of molidustat. METHODS: Both studies were parallel-group, open-label, multicenter studies of ≤36 months' duration, in patients with anemia due to CKD, and included an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent as active control. One study enrolled patients not receiving dialysis (n = 164), and the other enrolled patients receiving hemodialysis (n = 88). The primary efficacy variable for both studies was change in blood hemoglobin (Hb) level from baseline to each post-baseline visit, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In patients not on dialysis, the mean ± SD Hb concentrations at baseline were 11.28 ± 0.55 g/dL for molidustat and 11.08 ± 0.51 g/dL for darbepoetin. The mean ± SD blood Hb concentrations throughout the study (defined as mean of each patient's overall study Hb levels) were 11.10 ± 0.508 and 10.98 ± 0.571 g/dL in patients treated with molidustat and darbepoetin, respectively. Similar proportions of patients reported at least one AE in the molidustat (85.6%) and darbepoetin (85.7%) groups. In patients on dialysis, mean ± SD Hb levels at baseline were 10.40 ± 0.70 and 10.52 ± 0.53 g/dL in the molidustat and epoetin groups, respectively. The mean ± SD blood Hb concentrations during the study were 10.37 ± 0.56 g/dL in the molidustat group and 10.52 ± 0.47 g/dL in the epoetin group. Proportions of patients who reported at least one AE were 91.2% in the molidustat group and 93.3% in the epoetin group. CONCLUSIONS: Molidustat was well tolerated for up to 36 months and appears to be an effective alternative to darbepoetin and epoetin in the long-term management of anemia associated with CKD.

Comparison of Occlusive and Open Application in a Psoriasis Plaque Test Design, Exemplarily Using Investigations of Mapracorat 0.1% Ointment versus Vehicle and Reference Drugs.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Psoriasis plaque tests (PPTs) are important tools in the early phases of antipsoriatic drug development. Two distinct PPT design variants (open vs. occluded drug application) are commonly used, but no previous work has aimed to directly compare and contrast their performance. METHODS: We compared the antipsoriatic efficacy of mapracorat 0.1% ointment and reference drugs reported in 2 separate studies, representing open and occluded PPT designs. The drug effect size was measured by sonography (mean change in echo-poor band thickness), chromametry, and standardized clinical assessment. RESULTS: Antipsoriatic effects were detectable for the study drugs in both occluded and open PPTs. Differences between the potency of antipsoriatic drugs and vehicle were observable. The total antipsoriatic effect size appeared to be higher in the occluded PPT than the open PPT, despite the shorter treatment duration (2 vs. 4 weeks). Effect dynamics over time revealed greater differences between some study drugs in the open PPT compared to the occluded PPT. CONCLUSION: Taking the higher technical challenges for the open PPT into account, we recommend the occluded PPT as a standard screening setting in early drug development. In special cases, considering certain drug aspects or study objectives that would require procedural adaptations, an open PPT could be the better-suited design. Finally, both PPT models show clear advantages: classification as phase I studies, small number of psoriatic subjects, relatively short study duration, excellent discrimination between compounds and concentrations, parallel measurement of treatment response, and go/no go decisions very early in clinical development.

A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial of azelaic acid foam 15% in the treatment of papulopustular rosacea.

Rosacea is a chronic relapsing skin disorder primarily affecting the face. Although its etiology is not well defined, rosacea is associated with immune dysregulation and inflammation potentiated by external factors. These manifestations lead to skin sensitivity and impaired quality of life. Azelaic acid (AzA) is approved for the treatment of rosacea in a 15% gel formulation. This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of AzA in a 15% foam formulation for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea (PPR). Coprimary efficacy end points were treatment success according to investigator global assessment (IGA) and the nominal change in inflammatory lesion count (ILC) from baseline to the end of treatment (EoT). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as a measure of safety. The IGA success rate at EoT was significantly greater in the AzA foam group versus vehicle (P<.001; Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test). Likewise, nominal ILC change at EoT in the AzA foam group showed a significantly greater decrease versus vehicle (P<.001; F test). Drug-related AEs were mainly mild to moderate, cutaneous, and local. Overall, the study results support the efficacy and safety of twice-daily AzA foam 15% in patients with PPR.

Efficacy of topical azelaic acid (AzA) gel 15% plus oral doxycycline 40 mg versus metronidazole gel 1% plus oral doxycycline 40 mg in mild-to-moderate papulopustular rosacea.

Rosacea is a leading reason why people seek the care of a dermatologist, accounting for nearly 7 million office visits annually. Pharmacologic treatments include both topical and oral medications, which are increasingly being used in combination, especially at the outset of therapy. This exploratory study assesses the safety, effectiveness and speed of onset of two common topical agents for the treatment of rosacea--azelaic acid gel (AzA) 15% and metronidazole gel 1%--used in conjunction with anti-inflammatory dose doxycycline (40 mg once daily). Men and women (n = 207) with mild-to-moderate papulopustular rosacea were enrolled and randomized to receive either AzA gel 15% twice daily plus doxycycline 40 mg once daily (AzA group) or metronidazole gel 1% once daily plus doxycycline 40 mg once daily (Metro group) for 12 weeks. Both regimens were safe, efficacious and well tolerated. Efficacy parameters revealed a possible trend toward greater and earlier benefit with the AzA-based regimen than with the metronidazole-based regimen. These findings warrant further investigation in a sufficiently powered study.

An empirically generated responder definition for rosacea treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to empirically generate a responder definition for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. METHODS: A total of 8 multicenter clinical studies on patients with papulopustular facial rosacea were analyzed. All patients were treated with azelaic acid and/or comparator treatments. The severity of rosacea was described by the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) and the number of lesions. Patients with the IGA score of "clear/minimal" were considered as responders, and those staying in the range of IGA "mild to severe" as nonresponders. The respective number of lesions was determined. RESULTS: A total of 2,748 patients providing 12,410 measurements were included. After treatment, responders showed 2.23±2.48 lesions (median 2 lesions [0-3]), and nonresponders showed 13.74±10.40 lesions (median 12 lesions [6-18]). The optimal cutoff point between both groups was 5.69 lesions. CONCLUSION: The calculated cutoff point of 5.69 lesions allows discrimination of responders (5 or less remaining lesions) and nonresponders (6 or more remaining lesions) of therapeutic interventions in rosacea.

Investigator-reported efficacy of azelaic acid foam 15% in patients with papulopustular rosacea: secondary efficacy outcomes from a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

Papulopustular rosacea (PPR) is characterized by centrofacial papules and pustules commonly associated with erythema. To compare investigator-reported efficacy outcomes for azelaic acid (AzA) foam 15% versus vehicle foam in PPR, a randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-blind phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at 48 US sites. Participants received AzA foam or vehicle foam for 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy outcomes included change in inflammatory lesion count (ILC), therapeutic response rate according to investigator global assessment (IGA), and change in erythema rating. This study was comprised of 961 participants with PPR. The results support the therapeutic superiority of AzA foam over vehicle foam.

Patient-reported outcomes of azelaic acid foam 15% for patients with papulopustular rosacea: secondary efficacy results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

Patient-reported treatment outcomes are important for evaluating the impact of drug therapies on patient experience. A randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study was conducted in 961 participants to assess patient perception of efficacy, utility, and effect on quality of life (QOL) of an azelaic acid (AzA) 15% foam formulation for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea (PPR). Secondary end points included patient-reported global assessment of treatment response, global assessment of tolerability, and opinion on cosmetic acceptability and practicability of product use. Quality of life assessments included the Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI) and Rosacea Quality of Life Index (RosaQOL). Self-reported global assessment of treatment response favored AzA foam over vehicle foam (P<.001), with 57.2% of the AzA foam group reporting excellent or good improvement versus 44.7% in the vehicle foam group. Tolerability was rated excellent or good in 67.8% of the AzA foam group versus 78.2% of the vehicle foam group. Mean overall DLQI scores at end of treatment (EoT) were improved (P=.018) in favor of the AzA foam group compared with the vehicle foam group. Both treatment groups showed improvements in RosaQOL. Treatment with AzA foam was associated with improved QOL and meaningful reductions in the patient-perceived burden of PPR, which correlates with earlier reported primary end points of this study and supports the inclusion of patient perspectives in studies evaluating the effects of topical dermatologic treatments.

Azelaic acid foam 15% in the treatment of papulopustular rosacea: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study.

Rosacea is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease that primarily affects facial skin. Its etiology is unknown, and currently there is no cure. Rosacea can be associated with severe symptoms, including transient erythema (flushing), nontransient erythema, papules, pustules, and telangiectases, leading to substantial discomfort and an unattractive appearance. This randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study conducted over 12 weeks with a 4-week follow-up period evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of azelaic acid (AzA) foam in a 15% concentration compared to vehicle alone in patients with papulopustular rosacea (PPR). Primary efficacy variables assessed were investigator global assessment (IGA) dichotomized into success and failure, and nominal change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to end of treatment. Results indicated that the new foam formulation of AzA is effective and well-tolerated in a population of patients with PPR. Although no single formulation is appropriate for all patients, the development of a new foam formulation in addition to other available vehicles provides patients with options and allows health care providers to match the needs as well as preferences of individual patients and skin types with appropriate delivery modalities.