TRPC6 inhibitor (BI 764198) to reduce risk and severity of ARDS due to COVID-19: a phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations, there remains a need to investigate treatments to reduce the risk or severity of potentially fatal complications of COVID-19, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the transient receptor potential channel C6 (TRPC6) inhibitor, BI 764198, in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support (oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen). METHODS: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase II trial comparing once-daily oral BI 764198 (n=65) with placebo (n=64) for 28 days (+2-month follow-up). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at day 29. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients alive and discharged without oxygen (day 29); occurrence of either in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation (day 29); time to first response (clinical improvement/recovery); ventilator-free days (day 29); and mortality (days 15, 29, 60 and 90). RESULTS: No difference was observed for the primary endpoint: BI 764198 (83.1%) versus placebo (87.5%) (estimated risk difference -5.39%; 95% CI -16.08 to 5.30; p=0.323). For secondary endpoints, a longer time to first response (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p=0.045) and longer hospitalisation (+3.41 days; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.34; p=0.023) for BI 764198 versus placebo was observed; no other significant differences were observed. On-treatment adverse events were similar between trial arms and more fatal events were reported for BI 764198 (n=7) versus placebo (n=2). Treatment was stopped early based on an interim observation of a lack of efficacy and an imbalance of fatal events (Data Monitoring Committee recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: TRPC6 inhibition was not effective in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients with COVID-19 requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04604184.

HCVerso3: An Open-Label, Phase IIb Study of Faldaprevir and Deleobuvir with Ribavirin in Hepatitis C Virus Genotype-1b-Infected Patients with Cirrhosis and Moderate Hepatic Impairment.

This study evaluated the interferon-free, oral combination of deleobuvir (non-nucleoside HCV NS5-RNA-polymerase inhibitor) and faldaprevir (HCV NS3/4A-protease inhibitor) with ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype-1b and moderate (Child-Pugh B [CPB], n = 17) or mild hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh A [CPA], n = 18). Patients received faldaprevir 120 mg and deleobuvir (600 mg [CPA], 400 mg [CPB]) twice-daily with weight-based ribavirin for 24 weeks. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Among CPA patients, 13/18 completed treatment; discontinuations were for adverse events (AEs, n = 1), lack of efficacy (n = 3) and withdrawal (n = 1). Among CPB patients, 8/17 completed treatment; discontinuations were for AEs (n = 6), withdrawal (n = 1) and 'other' (n = 2). Sustained virologic response at post-treatment Week 12 (SVR12) was achieved by 11 (61%) CPA patients (95% confidence interval: 38.6%-83.6%) and 9 (53%) CPB patients (95% confidence interval: 29.2%-76.7%), including most CPA (11/16) patients with Week 4 HCV RNA <25 IU.mL-1 (target detected or not detected) and most CPB (8/9) patients with Week 4 HCV RNA <25 IU.mL-1 (target not detected); 0/4 CPB patients with Week 4 HCV RNA <25 IU.mL-1 (target detected) achieved SVR12. The most common AEs in both groups were nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting. Serious AEs were observed in 9 (53%) CPB patients and 1 (6%) CPA patient. Plasma trough concentrations of deleobuvir and faldaprevir were not substantially different between the CPA and CPB groups. In conclusion, in this small study the safety and efficacy profiles for 24 weeks of treatment with faldaprevir+deleobuvir+ribavirin in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment were consistent with the safety and efficacy profile of this regimen in non-cirrhotic patients. Faldaprevir+deleobuvir+ribavirin resulted in SVR12 in 53-61% of patients: proportions achieving SVR4 but not SVR12 were higher than in non-cirrhotic patients and overall response rates were lower than rates reported with other all-oral regimens in patients with cirrhosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01830127.

Initial combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin/linagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects not receiving antidiabetes therapy for ≥12 weeks were randomized to empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 137), empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 136), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 135), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 134), or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 135) for 52 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c at baseline was 7.99-8.05% (64 mmol/mol). At week 24, adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, and linagliptin 5 mg were -1.08 (0.06)% (-11.8 [0.7] mmol/mol), -1.24 (0.06)% (-13.6 [0.7] mmol/mol), -0.95 (0.06)% (-10.4 [0.7] mmol/mol), -0.83 (0.06)% (-9.1 [0.7] mmol/mol), and -0.67 (0.06)% (-7.3 [0.7] mmol/mol), respectively. Reductions in HbA1c were significantly greater for empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg compared with linagliptin 5 mg (P < 0.001) but not compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and were significantly greater for empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg compared with the individual components (P < 0.001 for both). At week 24, 55.4%, 62.3%, 41.5%, 38.8%, and 32.3% of subjects with baseline HbA1c ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol) reached HbA1c <7% with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, and linagliptin 5 mg, respectively. Efficacy was maintained at week 52. The proportion of subjects with adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks was similar across groups (68.9-81.5%), with no confirmed hypoglycemic AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin/linagliptin were significantly different versus linagliptin and empagliflozin 10 mg but not versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Empagliflozin/linagliptin was well tolerated.

Combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin as second-line therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combinations of empagliflozin/linagliptin as second-line therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects were randomized to a combination of empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 137), empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 136), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 141), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 140), or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 132) as add-on to metformin for 52 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: At week 24, reductions in HbA1c (mean baseline 7.90-8.02% [62.8-64.1 mmol/mol]) with empagliflozin/linagliptin were superior to those with empagliflozin or linagliptin alone as add-on to metformin; adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline were -1.19% (0.06) (-13.1 mmol/mol [0.7]) with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, -1.08% (0.06) (-11.8 mmol/mol [0.7]) with empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, -0.62% (0.06) (-6.8 mmol/mol [0.7]) with empagliflozin 25 mg, -0.66% (0.06) (-7.2 mmol/mol [0.7]) with empagliflozin 10 mg, and -0.70% (0.06) (-7.6 mmol/mol [0.7]) with linagliptin 5 mg (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In these groups, respectively, 61.8, 57.8, 32.6, 28.0, and 36.1% of subjects with baseline HbA1c ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol) had HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) at week 24. Efficacy was maintained at week 52. The proportion of subjects with adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks was similar across treatment arms (68.6-73.0%), with no hypoglycemic AEs requiring assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of empagliflozin/linagliptin as second-line therapy for 52 weeks significantly reduced HbA1c compared with the individual components and were well tolerated.

Ca2+ source-dependent transcription of CRE-containing genes in vascular smooth muscle.

Altered Ca2+ handling has immediate physiological and long-term genomic effects on vascular smooth muscle function. Previously we showed that Ca2+ entry through voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels (VDCCs) or store-operated Ca2+ channels (SOCCs) results in phosphorylation of the Ca2+/cAMP response element (CRE)-binding protein in cerebral arteries. Here, oligonucleotide array analysis was used to determine gene transcription profiles resulting from these two Ca2+ entry pathways in human cerebrovascular smooth muscle cell cultures. Results were confirmed and expanded using quantitative RT-PCR, Western blot, and immunofluorescence. A distinct, yet overlapping, set of CRE-regulated genes was induced by VDCC activation using K+ membrane depolarization vs. SOCC activation by thapsigargin (TG). Membrane depolarization selectively induced a sustained increase in early growth response-1 (Egr-1) mRNA and protein, which were inhibited by the VDCC blocker nimodipine and the SOCC inhibitor 2-aminoethoxydiphenylborate (2-APB). TG selectively induced a sustained increase in MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) mRNA and protein, and these effects were decreased by 2-APB, but not by nimodipine. The physiological agonist ANG II also stimulated expression of Egr-1 and MKP-1. Coadministration of 2-APB prevented expression of Egr-1 and MKP-1, whereas nimodipine blocked only Egr-1 expression. TG and ANG II induced phosphorylation of ERK, which was sensitive to 2-APB and was selectively required for CRE-binding protein phosphorylation. Our findings thus indicate that Ca2+ entry through VDCCs and store-operated Ca2+ entry can differentially regulate CRE-containing genes in vascular smooth muscle and also imply that agonist-induced signals involved in modulation of gene transcription can be controlled by multiple sources of Ca2+.

Excitation-transcription coupling in smooth muscle.

Calcium (Ca2+) signals affect virtually every biological process, including both contraction and gene transcription in smooth muscle. Ca2+-regulated gene transcription is known to be important for both physiological and pathological responses in smooth muscle. The aim of this review is to discuss the current understanding of gene transcription regulated by excitation through Ca2+ signalling using a comparison of the two most characterized Ca2+-regulated transcription factors in smooth muscle, Ca2+-cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB) and nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFAT). Recent studies have shown commonalities and differences in the regulation of CREB and NFAT through both voltage- and non-voltage-gated Ca2+ channels that lead to expression of smooth muscle cell specific differentiation markers as well as markers of proliferation. New insights into the regulation of specific genes through companion elements on the promoters of Ca2+-regulated genes have led to new models for transcriptional regulation by Ca2+ that are defined both by the source and duration of the Ca2+ signal and the composition of enhancer elements found within the regulatory regions of specific genes. Thus the combination of signalling pathways elicited by particular Ca2+ signals affect selective promoter elements that are key to the ultimate pattern of gene transcription.