Human plasma-derived alpha1 -proteinase inhibitor in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus: A randomized, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: While circulating levels of alpha1 -proteinase inhibitor (alpha1 -PI) are typically normal, antiprotease activity appears to be compromised in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Because alpha1 -PI [human] (alpha1 -PI[h]) therapy can inhibit pro-inflammatory mediators associated with ß-cell destruction and reduced insulin production, it has been proposed for T1DM disease prevention. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intravenous (IV) alpha1 -PI[h] in preserving C-peptide production in newly diagnosed T1DM patients. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-six participants (aged 6-35 years) were randomized at 25 centers within 3 months of T1DM diagnosis. METHODS: A Phase II, multicenter, partially blinded, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study evaluating four dosing regimens of alpha1 -PI[h] (NCT02093221, GTI1302): weekly IV infusions of either 90 or 180 mg/kg, each for either 13 or 26 weeks. Safety and efficacy were monitored over 52 weeks with an efficacy evaluation planned at 104 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the 2-h area-under-the-curve C-peptide level from a mixed-meal tolerance test at 52 weeks. A battery of laboratory tests, including inflammatory biomarkers, constituted exploratory efficacy variables. RESULTS: Infusions were well tolerated with no new safety signals. All groups exhibited highly variable declines in the primary outcome measure at 52 weeks with no statistically significant difference from placebo. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) was reduced from baseline in all alpha1 -PI treatment groups but not the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Pharmacologic therapy with alpha1 -PI[h] is safe, well tolerated, and able to reduce IL-6 levels; however, due to variability in the efficacy endpoint, its effects on preservation of C-peptide production were inconclusive.

A prospective, single-blind, randomized, phase III study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Fibrin Sealant Grifols as an adjunct to hemostasis compared with manual compression in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: New formulations and applications of hemostatic adjuncts such as fibrin sealant (FS) to support local hemostasis and sutures continue to be developed. In a pivotal, confirmatory, controlled, prospective, single-blinded, randomized, multicenter phase III clinical trial, the efficacy and safety of FS Grifols during vascular surgeries were evaluated. METHODS: Patients undergoing a nonemergency, open, peripheral vascular surgical procedure with moderate arterial bleeding were recruited. In an initial preliminary part of the study, all patients were treated with FS Grifols. In a subsequent primary part, patients were randomized (2:1) to FS Grifols or manual compression (MC). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of the primary part patients achieving hemostasis by 4 minutes after the start of treatment. Cumulative proportion and time to hemostasis were secondary efficacy end points. Safety end points (in pooled preliminary and primary parts) included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical assessments, clinical laboratory tests, viral markers, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was met by 76.1% of patients (83/109) for the FS Grifols group versus 22.8% of patients (13/57) for the MC group (P < .001). The cumulative proportion of patients at 5, 7, and 10 minutes was 80.7%, 84.4%, and 88.1%, respectively, in the FS Grifols treatment group, and 28.1%, 35.1%, and 45.6% in the MC treatment group (P < .001). The median time to hemostasis was shorter in the FS Grifols group (4 minutes vs ≥10 minutes in the MC group; P < .001). The nature of AEs reported were those expected in the study patient profile. The percentage of patients experiencing treatment-emergent AEs were similar in both the FS Grifols (pooled n = 59 + 109) and MC groups (81.0% and 77.2%, respectively), most recurrent being procedural pain (34.5% and 36.8%, respectively) and pyrexia (11.3% and 10.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: FS Grifols was superior in efficacy and similar in safety to MC as an adjunct local hemostatic agent in patients undergoing open vascular surgeries.

Gamunex® in Guillain-Barré Syndrome: A Postmarketing, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Gamunex® (immune globulin [human] 10%; hereinafter "Gamunex") when administered intravenously in the initial treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The study was conducted as a postapproval commitment for Health Canada. METHODS: A medical chart review for hospitalized patients diagnosed with GBS and treated with Gamunex (Gamunex 10% and IGIVnex® 10%; N=109; n=69 evaluable) was conducted at seven Canadian study centers in reverse chronological order. The primary endpoint for assessing effectiveness was the proportion of patients with treatment success compared with a prospectively defined historical effectiveness threshold for plasma exchange (PE) treatment (55.05%). Treatment success was assessed as ≥1 point improvement from baseline on the GBS Disability Scale or abbreviated GBS Disability Scale. Cases were not evaluable if treatment success, relapse, or treatment failure could not be determined by the available chart data. RESULTS: Applying a conservative estimate with all nonevaluable patients (n= 40) classified as treatment failures, Gamunex treatment success was estimated at 57.8% (63 of 109 patients), which exceeded the predefined historical PE effectiveness threshold. In the evaluable population of this study, Gamunex treatment was successful in 91.3% of patients (63/69). Some 23 (21.1%) of 109 Gamunex-treated patients experienced ≥1 adverse event; the profile and frequency were consistent with the adverse events reported for Gamunex in the product's labeling and with the natural clinical course of GBS. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of Gamunex for treatment of GBS was comparable to PE therapy. Gamunex was observed to have an acceptable safety profile in this study population.

Plasmin (Human) Administration in Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Ischemic Stroke: Phase 1/2a, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation, Safety Study.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1/2a, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation, safety study describes the first evaluation of plasmin as an intracranial thrombolytic treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the middle cerebral artery. The rationale for intrathrombus administration is that plasmin would bind fibrin inside the targeted clot, protecting it from circulating inhibitors. METHODS: Plasmin was given in escalating doses within 9 hours of stroke onset, and treatment efficacy was determined in 5 patient cohorts (N = 40): cohort 1 (20 mg, .5 mL/min), cohort 2a (40 mg, .05 mL/min), cohort 2b (40 mg, .33 mL/min), cohort 3a (80 mg, .67 mL/min), and cohort 3b (80 mg, .33 mL/min). RESULTS: Plasmin was generally safe at doses as high as 80 mg. No symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was observed, and the rate of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (12.5%) was consistent with that expected under supportive care. No relationship was observed between the plasmin dose and the incidence or severity of bleeding events, any particular serious adverse events, nor death. Changes in clinical chemistry, hematology, and coagulation parameters following plasmin treatment were unremarkable and unrelated to the dose. Plasmin administration resulted in successful reperfusion of the occluded vessel in 25% of patients across all cohorts, with no relationship between successful perfusion and total plasmin dose but a potential increase in reperfusion with slower infusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Plasmin treatment of the occluded middle cerebral artery within 9 hours of stroke onset was well tolerated and did notincrease adverse outcomes; however, successful recanalization was achieved in only a limited number of patients.

Phase 2, randomized, open-label study on catheter-directed thrombolysis with plasmin versus rtPA and placebo in acute peripheral arterial occlusion.

Background: Patients with acute peripheral arterial occlusion (aPAO) are candidates for operative thrombectomy, bypass, or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) using a plasminogen activator. Human plasma-derived plasmin may offer another CDT option. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two intrathrombus delivery methods and two doses of plasmin compared with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) and placebo in patients with aPAO. Patients/methods: This was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of intra-arterial CDT of plasmin in patients with aPAO. The study used infusion catheters with or without balloon occlusion (BOC) to evaluate 150 mg plasmin (2 and 5 h post-infusion) and 250 mg plasmin (5 h post-infusion). The efficacy of plasmin, rtPA and placebo was assessed. Results: One hundred and seventy-four subjects were enrolled. Overall, the thrombolytic efficacy (>50% thrombolysis) was 59% (58/99) for 150 mg plasmin without BOC, which is comparable to 89% (8/9) for rtPA without BOC (p = 0.149) and 40% (2/5) for placebo control (p = 0.648). The thrombolytic efficacy was 33% of the 250 mg plasmin group. There was no difference (p > 0.999) in thrombolytic efficacy with BOC (59%, 58/99) or without BOC (59%, 17/29). Plasmin-treated groups experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 71% (76/107) without BOC and 63% (24/38) with BOC; 78% (7/9) of the rtPA-treated group and 89% (8/9) of the placebo group had TEAEs. Serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 29% (31/107) of the 150 mg plasmin group without BOC and 24% (9/38) with BOC. No SAEs occurred in the 250 mg plasmin group. Conclusions: Plasmin demonstrated less bleeding during catheter-directed administration at 150 mg and 250 mg doses compared to rtPA. BOC utilization did not improve efficacy. CDT with plasmin has a potential thrombolytic benefit in patients presenting with aPAO. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01222117.

Immune globulin subcutaneous, human - klhw 20% for primary humoral immunodeficiency: an open-label, Phase III study.

Aim: This prospective, Phase III study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of immune globulin subcutaneous, human - klhw 20% solution (IGSC-C 20%) in participants with primary humoral immunodeficiency (PI), compared with immune globulin injection (human), 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C 10%). Patients & methods: About 53 participants enrolled. Total 44 received IGIV-C 10% in the run-in phase and then entered the IV phase (with an additional nine who were already receiving IGIV-C 10% and entered the IV phase directly) for steady-state IV PK assessments. Total 49 entered the SC phase (weekly doses of IGSC-C 20% for ∼24 weeks). The PK profiles of IGIV-C 10% and IGSC-C 20% and their safety and tolerability parameters were compared. Results: At a dose adjustment factor of 1.37, IGSC-C 20% provided comparable (noninferior and bioequivalent) overall total immunoglobulin G exposure to IGIV-C 10% over an equal time interval. About 33 participants reported 79 adverse events during run-in + IV phases; 41 participants reported 141 adverse events during the SC phase, with most being local infusion site reactions. The majority of infusion site reactions were mild to moderate in severity. Conclusion: IGSC-C 20% was bioequivalent to IGIV-C 10% and was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with IGIV-C 10%, in this study. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02604810.

A Prospective, Randomized, Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fibrin Sealant Grifols as an Adjunct to Hemostasis as Compared to Cellulose Sheets in Hepatic Surgery Resections.

BACKGROUND: Local hemostatic agents have a role in limiting bleeding complications associated with liver resection. METHODS: In this randomized, phase III study, we compared the efficacy and safety of Fibrin Sealant Grifols (FS Grifols) with oxidized cellulose sheets (Surgicel®) as adjuncts to hemostasis during hepatic resections. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving hemostasis at target bleeding sites (TBS) within 4 min (T4) of treatment application. Secondary efficacy variables were time to hemostasis (TTH) at a later time point if re-bleeding occurs and cumulative proportion of patients achieving hemostasis by time points T2, T3, T5, T7, and T10. RESULTS: The rate of hemostasis by T4 was 92.8% in the FS Grifols group (n = 163) and 80.5% in the Surgicel® group (n = 162) (p = 0.01). The mean TTH was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the FS Grifols group (2.8 ± 0.14 vs. 3.8 ± 0.24 min). The rate of hemostasis by T2, T5, and T7 was higher and statistically superior in the FS Grifols group compared to Surgicel®. No substantial differences in adverse events (AE) were noted between treatment groups. The most common AEs were procedural pain (36.2 vs. 37.7%), nausea (20.9 vs. 23.5%), and hypotension (14.1 vs 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: FS Grifols was safe and well tolerated as a local hemostatic agent during liver resection surgeries. Overall, data demonstrate that the hemostatic efficacy of FS Grifols is superior to Surgicel® and support the use of FS Grifols as an effective local hemostatic agent in these surgical procedures.