Design of Two Phase III, Randomized, Multicenter Studies Comparing Gepotidacin with Nitrofurantoin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection in Female Participants.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are among the most common community-acquired infections for women worldwide. Treatment options are increasingly limited by antibiotic resistance; novel oral antibiotics are urgently needed. Gepotidacin is a novel, bactericidal, first-in-class triazaacenaphthylene antibiotic that inhibits bacterial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) replication by a distinct mechanism of action, which confers activity against most strains of target pathogens, such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus saprophyticus, including those resistant to current antibiotics. Here, we describe the designs of two near-identical phase III clinical trials (EAGLE-2 and EAGLE-3) evaluating gepotidacin for the treatment of uUTI. METHODS: These are phase III, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, comparator-controlled, noninferiority studies, comparing the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin to nitrofurantoin in the treatment of uUTI. Eligible participants are women aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 2 uUTI symptoms, randomized (1:1) to receive oral gepotidacin (1500 mg) plus placebo or nitrofurantoin (100 mg) plus placebo, twice daily for 5 days. The primary therapeutic endpoint is composite clinical and microbiological efficacy, with noninferiority comparisons made in individuals with a qualifying (≥ 105 colony-forming units/mL urine) nitrofurantoin-susceptible uropathogen. RESULTS: These trials were designed in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration (2019) and European Medicines Agency (2018) guidance, particularly the composite endpoint and microbiological evaluability requirements. Across the trials ~ 5000 participants are planned to be enrolled from > 200 centers globally. CONCLUSIONS: Gepotidacin represents an important potential treatment option being evaluated to address the need for novel oral antibiotics to treat uUTI. These trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ) where the full protocols can be accessed under trial IDs: NCT04020341 (EAGLE-2) and NCT04187144 (EAGLE-3).

Gepotidacin is efficacious in a nonhuman primate model of pneumonic plague.

Gepotidacin is a first-in-class triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial agent that selectively inhibits bacterial DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV through a unique binding mode and has the potential to treat a number of bacterial diseases. Development of this new agent to treat pneumonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis depends on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Animal Rule testing pathway, as testing in humans is not feasible. Here, preclinical studies were conducted in the African green monkey (AGM) inhalational model of pneumonic plague to test the efficacy of gepotidacin. AGMs infected with Y. pestis were dosed intravenously with gepotidacin (48, 36, or 28 milligrams/kilogram per day) for 10 days to provide a plasma concentration that would support a rationale for a 1000 mg twice or thrice daily intravenous dose in humans or saline as a control. The primary end point was AGM survival with predefined euthanasia criteria. Secondary end points included survival duration and bacterial clearance. Gepotidacin showed activity in vitro against diverse Y. pestis isolates including antibiotic-resistant strains. All control animals in the inhalational plague studies succumbed to plague and were blood culture and organ culture positive for Y. pestis. Gepotidacin provided a 75 to 100% survival benefit with all dose regimens. All surviving animals were blood culture and organ culture negative for Y. pestis. Our randomized, controlled efficacy trials in the AGM pneumonic plague nonhuman primate model together with the in vitro Y. pestis susceptibility data support the use of gepotidacin as a treatment for pneumonic plague caused by Y. pestis.

Pharmacokinetics of Gepotidacin in Renal Impairment.

Gepotidacin is a novel triazaacenaphthylene bacterial topoisomerase inhibitor. In this phase 1, nonrandomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, multipart study, the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous (IV) dose of gepotidacin 750 mg over 2 hours were evaluated in subjects with normal renal function, in those with moderate and severe renal impairment, and in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on and not on dialysis. Administration of IV gepotidacin 750 mg was safe and generally tolerated in the study subjects. Dosing in severe renal impairment with and without hemodialysis resulted in significant increases in plasma drug levels and decreases in clearance. The geometric mean elimination half-life (t½ ) was minimally impacted (range 9.45 to 11.5 hours) in all the renal-impairment groups relative to normal renal function. Regardless of renal function, urine gepotidacin concentrations remained considerably high over a 12-hour period. Saliva concentrations displayed a linear relationship with plasma concentrations. The t½ in saliva was not impacted in the moderate-impairment and ESRD subjects and was comparable to t½ in plasma. Over a 4-hour dialysis, approximately 6% of the gepotidacin dose was removed. Overall, subjects with severe renal impairment and ESRD with and without hemodialysis may require adjustment in dose or dosing frequency.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the antibacterial treatment effect of nitrofurantoin for a non-inferiority trial in uncomplicated urinary tract infection.

OBJECTIVES: Active-comparator, non-inferiority study designs are used in uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) to establish the efficacy of a new antibacterial, given the availability of effective antibiotics. Here we estimated the treatment effect of a planned antimicrobial comparator (nitrofurantoin) from historical trial data to properly design an upcoming non-inferiority trial in uUTI. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, which incorporate recommendations for standardised data quality assessment, reporting of results, risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses. To account for interstudy variability, a weighted, non-iterative, random-effects model was fit using R software to obtain estimates of the microbiological response rate and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for nitrofurantoin and placebo treatment. Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's χ2 test for interstudy heterogeneity; I2 statistic and P-values were computed and included in the forest plot of the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve unique studies met the final eligibility criteria for meta-analysis inclusion; three trials assessed placebo efficacy, eight trials assessed nitrofurantoin efficacy, and one study assessed both nitrofurantoin and placebo efficacy in uUTI. The overall microbiological response (95% CI) was 0.766 (0.665-0.867) for nitrofurantoin and 0.342 (0.288-0.397) for placebo. CONCLUSION: The corresponding treatment effect estimate for nitrofurantoin was 26.8%, which supports a conservative non-inferiority margin of 12.5% and is consistent with the recently published draft FDA guidance. The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis may inform future antibacterial trials by providing non-inferiority margin justification.

Safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0%: Pooled analysis of five randomized controlled trials in dry eye disease.

PURPOSE: Characterize the safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for the treatment of dry eye disease. METHODS: Pooled data from five randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria were adults with dry eye disease (Schirmer tear test score ⩾1 and ⩽10 mm, eye dryness score ⩾40 (visual analog scale 0-100), corneal staining score ⩾2.0 (0-4 scale)). Participants were randomized to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 or 360 days. Treatment-emergent adverse events and drop comfort scores were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 2464 participants (lifitegrast, n = 1287; placebo, n = 1177) were included. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in >5% in either group were instillation site irritation (lifitegrast, 15.2%; placebo, 2.8%), instillation site reaction (lifitegrast, 12.3%; placebo, 2.3%), and instillation site pain (lifitegrast, 9.8%; placebo, 2.1%); the most common (> 5%) nonocular treatment-emergent adverse event was dysgeusia (lifitegrast, 14.5%; placebo, 0.3%). The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. Discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 7.0% (lifitegrast) versus 2.6% (placebo) of participants (ocular: 5.5% vs 1.5%; nonocular: 1.9% vs 1.1%). Drop comfort scores with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation and the score at 3 min improved across visits (12-week trials (both eyes, day 84 vs 0): 2.0 vs 3.3; SONATA (day 360 vs 0): right eye, 1.2 vs 1.7; left eye, 1.2 vs 1.8). CONCLUSION: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% appeared to be safe and well tolerated for the treatment of dry eye disease. Drop comfort with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability Evaluation of Single and Multiple Doses of GSK3342830 in Healthy Volunteers.

This was a first-time-in-human randomized, double-blind, single-center, placebo-controlled dose-escalation study to determine the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of GSK3342830 after single and repeat intravenous doses in healthy adult subjects (NCT0271424). Sixty-two subjects were enrolled: 48 subjects in part 1 (single dose) and 14 subjects in part 2 (multiple doses). Following single intravenous infusions, total systemic exposure of GSK3342830 was dose proportional over the 250- to 6000-mg dose range evaluated, whereas peak exposure was approximately dose proportional over the dose range. Following repeat intravenous infusions 3 times a day, GSK3342830 showed time invariance with no drug accumulation. Steady state was reached before day 3, and approximately 90% of GSK3342830 was excreted unchanged in urine. All 48 subjects in part 1 (100.0%) completed the study. In part 2, 9 subjects (64.3%) completed the study, and 5 subjects, all receiving GSK3342830, discontinued early (35.7%), 4 after experiencing fever, headache, and malaise, whereas 1 subject met predefined criteria for drug discontinuation because of transaminitis. GSK3342830 demonstrated PK consistent with other cephalosporin-class antibiotics but poor tolerability following multiple doses in healthy volunteers.

Microbiological Analysis from a Phase 2 Randomized Study in Adults Evaluating Single Oral Doses of Gepotidacin in the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urogenital Gonorrhea Caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

We evaluated microbiological correlates for the successful treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from a phase 2 study of gepotidacin, a novel triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial, for therapy of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea. Culture, susceptibility testing, genotypic characterization, and frequency of resistance (FoR) were performed for selected isolates. Microbiological success was defined as culture-confirmed eradication of N. gonorrhoeae Against 69 baseline urogenital isolates, gepotidacin MICs ranged from ≤0.06 to 1 µg/ml (MIC90 = 0.5 µg/ml). For gepotidacin, the ratio of the area under the free-drug concentration-time curve to the MIC (fAUC/MIC) was associated with therapeutic success. Success was 100% (61/61) at fAUC/MICs of ≥48 and decreased to 63% (5/8) for fAUC/MICs of ≤25. All 3 isolates from microbiological failures were ciprofloxacin resistant, had a baseline gepotidacin MIC of 1 µg/ml, and carried a preexisting ParC D86N mutation, a critical residue for gepotidacin binding. In a test-of-cure analysis, the resistance to gepotidacin emerged in 2 isolates (MICs increased ≥32-fold) with additional GyrA A92T mutations, also implicated in gepotidacin binding. Test-of-cure isolates had the same sequence type as the corresponding baseline isolates. For 5 selected baseline isolates, all carrying a ParC D86N mutation, the in vitro FoR to gepotidacin was low (10-9 to 10-10); the resistant mutants had the same A92T mutation as the 2 isolates in which resistance emerged. Five participants with isolates harboring the ParC D86N mutation were treatment successes. In summary, fAUC/MICs of ≥48 predicted 100% microbiological success, including 3 isolates with the ParC D86N mutation (fAUC/MICs ≥ 97). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic determinations may help to evaluate new therapies for gonorrhea; further study of gepotidacin is warranted. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02294682.).

Gepotidacin for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Urogenital Gonorrhea: A Phase 2, Randomized, Dose-Ranging, Single-Oral Dose Evaluation.

Background: In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral gepotidacin, a novel triazaacenaphthylene bacterial type II topoisomerase inhibitor, for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea. Methods: Adult participants with suspected urogenital gonorrhea were enrolled and completed baseline (day 1) and test-of-cure (days 4-8) visits. Pretreatment and posttreatment urogenital swabs were collected for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) culture and susceptibility testing. Pharyngeal and rectal swab specimens were collected if there were known exposures. Participants were stratified by gender and randomized 1:1 to receive a 1500-mg or 3000-mg single oral dose of gepotidacin. Results: The microbiologically evaluable population consisted of 69 participants, with NG isolated from 69 (100%) urogenital, 2 (3%) pharyngeal, and 3 (4%) rectal specimens. Microbiological eradication of NG was achieved by 97%, 95%, and 96% of participants (lower 1-sided exact 95% confidence interval bound, 85.1%, 84.7%, and 89.1%, respectively) for the 1500-mg, 3000-mg, and combined dose groups, respectively. Microbiological cure was achieved in 66/69 (96%) urogenital infections. All 3 failures were NG isolates that demonstrated the highest observed gepotidacin minimum inhibitory concentration of 1 µg/mL and a common gene mutation. At the pharyngeal and rectal sites, 1/2 and 3/3 NG isolates, respectively, demonstrated microbiological cure. There were no treatment-limiting adverse events for either dose. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that single, oral doses of gepotidacin were ≥95% effective for bacterial eradication of NG in adult participants with uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02294682.

Ocular comfort assessment of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in OPUS-3, a Phase III randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate ocular comfort of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% among patients with dry eye disease (DED) in the OPUS-3 trial. METHODS: OPUS-3 was a multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. Adults with DED and recent artificial tear use were randomized 1:1 (lifitegrast:placebo) to ophthalmic drops twice daily for 84 days. On days 0 (baseline), 14, 42, and 84, drop comfort score (scale, 0-10; 0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable) was measured at 0, 1, 2, and 3 minutes postinstillation. If the score was >3 at 3 minutes, assessment was repeated at 5, 10, and 15 minutes until score ≤3. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 711 participants were randomized (n=357 received lifitegrast; n=354 received placebo). Drop comfort scores for lifitegrast-treated participants improved within 3 minutes of instillation (mean scores on day 84 for both study and fellow eyes: instillation: lifitegrast, 3.4, placebo, 1.0; 3 minutes: lifitegrast, 1.5, placebo, 0.7). The majority (64%-66%) of participants had scores <3 within 3 minutes postinstillation on days 14, 42, and 84. In participants with scores >3 at 3 minutes, the mean score in the lifitegrast group was similar to or better than that in the placebo group at 5, 10, or 15 minutes postinstillation. Lifitegrast appeared to be well tolerated, with ocular TEAEs rarely leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In OPUS-3, lifitegrast appeared to be well tolerated and drop comfort scores approached placebo levels by 3 minutes postinstillation.

Lifitegrast for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: Results of a Phase III, Randomized, Double-Masked, Placebo-Controlled Trial (OPUS-3).

PURPOSE: Lifitegrast is a lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 antagonist developed to reduce inflammation in dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-3 (NCT02284516), a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast versus placebo in participants with DED. DESIGN: Twelve-week, phase III, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, corneal fluorescein staining score ≥2.0 (0-4 scale), eye dryness score (EDS) ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]), and history of artificial tear use within 30 days of study entry. METHODS: After a 14-day placebo run-in, participants were randomized 1:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 84 in EDS. Key secondary efficacy end points were change from baseline to days 42 and 14 in EDS. Other secondary efficacy end points included additional VAS items (burning/stinging, itching, foreign body sensation, eye discomfort, photophobia, pain), ocular discomfort score (ODS), and safety/tolerability of lifitegrast versus placebo. RESULTS: In the study, 711 participants were randomized: placebo, 356; lifitegrast, 355 (intention-to-treat [ITT] population). At day 84, lifitegrast-treated participants experienced significantly greater improvement from baseline in EDS versus those receiving placebo (treatment effect [TE], 7.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.04-11.28; P = 0.0007). Mean changes from baseline in EDS also significantly favored lifitegrast on days 42 (TE, 9.32; 95% CI, 5.44-13.20; P < 0.0001) and 14 (TE, 7.85; 95% CI, 4.33-11.37; P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed in ODS between treatment groups at days 84, 42, or 14. A greater improvement was observed in lifitegrast-treated participants at day 42 in itching (nominal P = 0.0318), foreign body sensation (nominal P = 0.0418), and eye discomfort (P = 0.0048) versus participants receiving placebo. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity; no serious ocular adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast significantly improved symptoms of eye dryness, as measured by EDS, versus placebo in participants with DED. Improvement in EDS was observed as early as day 14. Lifitegrast appeared well tolerated.

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0-4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0-4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0-100). RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05-0.65; p = 0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.38; p = 0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35-24.33; nominal p = 0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51-16.70; p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.

Safety of Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution 5.0% in Patients With Dry Eye Disease: A 1-Year, Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 1-year safety of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in patients with dry eye disease compared with placebo. METHODS: SONATA (Safety Of a 5.0% coNcentrATion of lifitegrAst ophthalmic solution) was a multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT01636206). Adults (≥18 years) with dry eye disease (Schirmer test score ≥1 and ≤10 mm; corneal staining score ≥2.0) were randomized 2:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 360 days. The primary objective was percentage and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary objectives were ocular safety measures: corneal fluorescein staining, drop comfort, best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and intraocular pressure over 7 visits. Exploratory objectives included concentration of lifitegrast in plasma. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 331 participants (220 lifitegrast; 111 placebo). There were no serious ocular TEAEs. Overall, 53.6% of participants receiving lifitegrast experienced ≥1 ocular TEAE versus 34.2% in the placebo group; most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. Rates of discontinuation because of TEAEs were 12.3% (lifitegrast) versus 9.0% (placebo). The most common (>5%) TEAEs occurring in either treatment group were instillation site irritation (burning), instillation site reaction, visual acuity reduced, dry eye, and dysgeusia (change in taste). Ocular safety parameters for lifitegrast were similar to placebo. The mean plasma lifitegrast concentration at 360 days (n = 43) was below the limit of detection. There was no indication of systemic toxicity or localized infectious complications secondary to chronic immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% seemed safe and well tolerated in this study, with no unexpected adverse events.

Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution 5.0% versus Placebo for Treatment of Dry Eye Disease: Results of the Randomized Phase III OPUS-2 Study.

PURPOSE: Lifitegrast is an integrin antagonist that decreases T-cell-mediated inflammation associated with dry eye disease (DED). We report the results of OPUS-2, a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast compared with placebo for the treatment of DED. DESIGN: A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with use of artificial tears within 30 days, inferior corneal staining score ≥0.5 (0-4 scale), Schirmer tear test (without anesthesia) ≥1 and ≤10 mm, and eye dryness score ≥40 (0-100 visual analogue scale [VAS]). METHODS: Subjects were randomized 1:1 after 14-day placebo run-in to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary efficacy end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in eye dryness score (VAS, both eyes) and inferior corneal fluorescein staining score in the designated study eye. Secondary end points were change, from baseline to day 84, in ocular discomfort score (0-4 scale) in study eye, eye discomfort score (VAS), total corneal staining score in the study eye, and nasal conjunctival lissamine green staining score (0-4 scale) in the study eye. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 718 subjects were randomized: placebo, n = 360; lifitegrast, n = 358 (intent-to-treat population). Lifitegrast-treated subjects experienced greater improvement in eye dryness than placebo-treated subjects (treatment effect, 12.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.51-16.70; P < 0.0001). There was no between-group difference in inferior corneal staining (treatment effect, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.17; P = 0.6186). There was nominally significant improvement of secondary symptom end points among lifitegrast-treated subjects: ocular discomfort (nominal P = 0.0005) and eye discomfort (nominal, P < 0.0001). There were no between-group differences on secondary signs: total corneal staining and nasal lissamine staining. More lifitegrast-treated subjects (33.7%) than placebo-treated subjects (16.4%) experienced ocular TEAEs; no ocular TEAEs were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Lifitegrast met the co-primary symptom end point (eye dryness) but not the co-primary sign end point (inferior corneal staining). Secondary end point findings were consistent with this pattern. Most ocular TEAEs were mild to moderate; there were no unexpected TEAEs. Lifitegrast warrants further consideration as a treatment for DED.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with clinically stable schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ascending multiple doses.

To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, this double-blind study enrolled adults with clinically stable schizophrenia who were adherent (≥12 weeks) to antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. The participants received placebo or ascending LDX doses (50, 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mg) daily for 5 days at each dose (dose periods, 1-6; days, 1-5). Of the 31 enrolled participants, 27 completed the study (placebo, n = 6; LDX, n = 21). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported by 4 participants receiving placebo and by 23 participants receiving LDX (all doses) with no serious AEs while on active treatment. For all periods, the mean postdose change on day 5 (up to 12 hours postdose) in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse, respectively, ranged from -4.62 to 8.05 mm Hg, -3.67 to 4.43 mm Hg, and -3.57 to 14.43 beats per minute for placebo and -3.83 to 11.25 mm Hg, -1.55 to 5.80 mm Hg, and -0.36 to 21.26 beats per minute for LDX. With ascending LDX dose, the mean (SD) maximum plasma concentration for LDX-derived d-amphetamine ranged from 51.68 (10.28) to 266.27 (56.55) ng/mL. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for 24 hours ranged from 801.8 (170.2) to 4397.9 (1085.9) ng[BULLET OPERATOR]h/mL. The d-amphetamine maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve increased linearly with ascending LDX dose. Antipsychotic agents did not markedly affect d-amphetamine pharmacokinetics. Over a wide range of ascending doses, LDX safety profile in adults with schizophrenia was consistent with previous findings with no unexpected treatment-emergent AEs. Pulse tended to increase with LDX dose; overall, blood pressure did not increase with LDX dose. Consistent with previous studies, pharmacokinetic parameters increased linearly with increasing LDX dose.

Self-Reported quality of life in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and executive function impairment treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on quality of life (QOL) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinically significant executive function deficits (EFD). METHODS: This report highlights QOL findings from a 10-week randomized placebo-controlled trial of LDX (30-70 mg/d) in adults (18-55 years) with ADHD and EFD (Behavior Rating Inventory of EF-Adult, Global Executive Composite [BRIEF-A GEC] ≥65). The primary efficacy measure was the self-reported BRIEF-A; a key secondary measure was self-reported QOL on the Adult ADHD Impact Module (AIM-A). The clinician-completed ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) were also employed. The Adult ADHD QoL (AAQoL) was added while the study was in progress. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup having evaluable results from both AIM-A and AAQoL. RESULTS: Of 161 randomized (placebo, 81; LDX, 80), 159 were included in the safety population. LDX improved AIM-A multi-item domain scores versus placebo; LS mean difference for Performance and Daily Functioning was 21.6 (ES, 0.93, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference was 14.9 (ES, 0.62, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Bother/Concern was 13.5 (ES, 0.57, P=.0003); Relationships/Communication was 7.8 (ES, 0.31, P=.0302); Living With ADHD was 9.1 (ES, 0.79, P<.0001); and General Well-Being was 10.8 (ES, 0.70, P<.0001). AAQoL LS mean difference for total score was 21.0; for subscale: Life Productivity was 21.0; Psychological Health was 12.1; Life Outlook was 12.5; and Relationships was 7.3. In a post hoc analysis of participants with both AIM-A and AAQoL scores, AIM-A multi-item subgroup analysis scores numerically improved with LDX, with smaller difference for Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with amphetamine use in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adults with ADHD/EFD exhibited self-reported improvement on QOL, using the AIM-A and AAQoL scales in line with medium/large ES; these improvements were paralleled by improvements in EF and ADHD symptoms. The safety profile of LDX was similar to previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01101022.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who report clinically significant impairment in executive function: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral rating scales that assess impairments in executive function commonly associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may offer advantages over neuropsychological testing. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for executive function deficits in adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function impairment using self-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) assessments. METHOD: This randomized double-blind study, conducted between May 2010 and November 2010, screened at least 1 participant at 35 of 39 registered US clinical research sites. Adults (aged 18-55 years) with a primary ADHD diagnosis (meeting full DSM-IV-TR criteria) and executive function deficits (assessed by baseline BRIEF-A Global Executive Composite [GEC] T-scores of at least 65) were randomized to treatment with optimized lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30 mg/d, 50 mg/d, or 70 mg/d; n = 80) or placebo (n = 81) during a 10-week double-blind treatment period. Outcome measures included the BRIEF-A scales (GEC, index, and clinical subscales). RESULTS: At week 10 or at early termination, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean BRIEF-A GEC T-scores than placebo (effect size, 0.74; P < .0001) and significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean T-scores for both BRIEF-A index scales (Behavioral Regulation Index and Metacognition Index) and all 9 clinical subscales (P ≤ .0056 for all). At week 10 or at early termination, mean T-scores for BRIEF-A indexes and clinical subscales were below levels of clinically significant executive function deficits (ie, < 65) with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment. The mean (SD) GEC T-score was 57.2 (14.11) for the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate group and 68.3 (17.12) for the placebo group. The safety profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was consistent with other long-acting psychostimulants. CONCLUSION: Among adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function deficits, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significant improvements in self-reported executive function ratings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01101022.

Repeated subcutaneous injections of IL12/23 p40 neutralising antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: Repeated subcutaneous injections of a monoclonal antibody against the p40 subunit of interleukins 12 and 23, ustekinumab, were used to treat patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to assess the drug's safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics. METHODS: In this phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 249 patients with RRMS, aged 18-65 years, were eligible to be assigned equally (by a central randomisation procedure based on study site and presence or absence of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions at baseline) to one of five groups that received placebo or four different ustekinumab dosages at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. Ustekinumab doses were 27 mg, 90 mg q8w, 90 mg, or 180 mg; the 90 mg q8w dosage group received placebo substitute at weeks 7 and 15. The primary endpoint was the cumulative number of new gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on serial cranial MRI through week 23. Patients were followed up through week 37. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00207727. FINDINGS: From August, 2004, to December, 2006, 249 patients underwent randomisation (49 for placebo; 50 for each ustekinumab group). Ustekinumab treatment did not show a significant reduction in the primary endpoint for any dosage groups versus placebo. At week 37, adverse events occurred in 38 (78%) placebo-treated patients and 170 (85%) ustekinumab-treated patients, with infections most commonly reported. Serious adverse events occurred in one (2%) placebo-treated patient and six (3%) ustekinumab-treated patients. Malignant diseases were reported in two patients shortly after the initiation of ustekinumab treatment; both patients were withdrawn from the trial and given appropriate treatment, which resulted in complete remission. No serious infections, cardiovascular events, or exacerbation of demyelinating events occurred. A dose-dependent increase in serum concentrations of ustekinumab was recorded. INTERPRETATION: Ustekinumab is generally well tolerated but does not show efficacy in reducing the cumulative number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions in multiple sclerosis.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of infliximab plus methotrexate for the treatment of polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab in the treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA). METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. One hundred twenty-two children with persistent polyarticular JRA despite prior methotrexate (MTX) therapy were randomized to receive infliximab or placebo for 14 weeks, after which all children received infliximab through week 44. Patients received MTX plus infliximab 3 mg/kg through week 44, or MTX plus placebo for 14 weeks followed by MTX plus infliximab 6 mg/kg through week 44. RESULTS: Although a higher proportion of patients in the 3 mg/kg infliximab group than in the placebo group had achieved responses according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 (Pedi 30) criteria for improvement at week 14 (63.8% and 49.2%, respectively), the between-group difference in this primary efficacy end point was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). By week 16, after the crossover from placebo to infliximab 6 mg/kg when all patients were receiving infliximab, an ACR Pedi 30 response was achieved in 73.2% of all patients. By week 52, ACR Pedi 50 and ACR Pedi 70 responses had been reached in 69.6% and 51.8%, respectively, of patients. Infliximab was generally well tolerated, but the safety profile of infliximab 3 mg/kg appeared less favorable than that of infliximab 6 mg/kg, with more frequent occurrences of serious adverse events, infusion reactions, antibodies to infliximab, and newly induced antinuclear antibodies and antibodies to double-stranded DNA observed with the 3 mg/kg dose. CONCLUSION: While infliximab at 3 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg showed durable efficacy at 1 year, achievement of the primary efficacy end point at 3 months did not differ significantly between infliximab-treated and placebo-treated patients. Safety data indicated that the 6-mg/kg dose may provide a more favorable risk/benefit profile. These results warrant further investigation in children with JRA.

A phase I trial of an interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of an interleukin (IL)-12/23 monoclonal antibody (mAb) in subjects with a relapsing form of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A phase I, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose escalation study was conducted in 20 subjects with MS. Subjects were randomized (4:1) to receive a single subcutaneous injection of either IL-12/23 mAb (0.3, 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg) or placebo. Clinical and laboratory evaluations were performed through 16 weeks following administration. RESULTS: IL-12/23 mAb was well tolerated in this study. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate, with no apparent dose-related trends. One subject with a family history of breast cancer was diagnosed during the study with breast cancer 21 days after IL-12/23 mAb administration. There were no significant changes in laboratory indicators of systemic or neurotoxicity. There was a large degree of variability in T2 lesion volume and total number of gadolinium-positive lesions, both unaffected by dose escalation. Three relapses of MS occurred in two placebo-treated subjects. Over the range of single doses studied, the median Tmax ranged from 9.0 to 16.5 days, and the median T1/2 ranged from 20.2 to 30.9 days. CONCLUSION: Single subcutaneous administrations of IL-12/23 mAb in this first study of relapsing MS were generally well tolerated. Safety of the agent will need to be tested in a study of longer duration and involving a larger cohort of subjects.