Evaluation of PXL065 - deuterium-stabilized (R)-pioglitazone in patients with NASH: A phase II randomized placebo-controlled trial (DESTINY-1).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is efficacious in NASH, but its utility is limited by PPARγ-driven side effects. Pio is a mixture of two enantiomers (R, S). PXL065, deuterium-stabilized R-Pio, lacks PPARγ activity but retains non-genomic activity. We tested the hypothesis that PXL065 would have similar efficacy but a better safety profile than Pio in patients with NASH. METHODS: Patients (≥8% liver fat, NAFLD activity score [NAS] ≥4, F1-F3) received daily doses of PXL065 (7.5, 15, 22.5 mg) or placebo 1:1:1:1 for 36 weeks. The primary endpoint was relative % change in liver fat content (LFC) on MRI-proton density fat fraction; liver histology, non-invasive tests, safety-tolerability, and pharmacokinetics were also assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients were evaluated. All PXL065 groups met the primary endpoint (-21 to -25% LFC, p = 0.008-0.02 vs. placebo); 40% (22.5 mg) achieved a ≥30% LFC reduction. Favorable trends in non-invasive tests including reductions in PIIINP (p = 0.02, 22.5 mg) and NAFLD fibrosis score (p = 0.04, 22.5 mg) were observed. On histology (n = 92), a ≥1 stage fibrosis improvement occurred in 40% (7.5 mg), 50% (15 mg, p = 0.06), and 35% (22.5 mg) vs. 17% for placebo; up to 50% of PXL065-treated patients achieved a ≥2 point NAS improvement without fibrosis worsening vs. 30% with placebo. Metabolic improvements included: HbA1c (-0.41% p = 0.003) and insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR, p = 0.04; Adipo-IR, p = 0.002). Adiponectin increased (+114%, 22.5 mg, p <0.0001) vs. placebo. There was no dose-dependent effect on body weight or PXL065-related peripheral oedema signal. Overall, PXL065 was safe and well tolerated. Pharmacokinetics confirmed dose-proportional and higher steady state R- vs. S-Pio exposure. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is an approved diabetes medicine with proven efficacy in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); PXL065 is a novel related oral agent which has been shown to retain Pio's efficacy in preclinical NASH models, with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. Results of this phase II study are important as PXL065 improved several key NASH disease features with a favorable safety profile - these findings can be applied by researchers seeking to understand pathophysiology and to develop new therapies. These results also indicate that PXL065 warrants further clinical testing in a pivotal NASH trial. Other implications include the potential future availability of a distinct oral therapy for NASH that may be relevant for patients, providers and caregivers seeking to prevent the progression and complications of this disease. CONCLUSIONS: PXL065 is a novel molecule which retains an efficacy profile in NASH similar to Pio with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. A pivotal clinical trial is warranted to confirm the histological benefits reported herein. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is an approved diabetes medicine with proven efficacy in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); PXL065 is a novel related oral agent which has been shown to retain Pio's efficacy in preclinical NASH models, with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. Results of this phase II study are important as PXL065 improved several key NASH disease features with a favorable safety profile - these findings can be applied by researchers seeking to understand pathophysiology and to develop new therapies. These results also indicate that PXL065 warrants further clinical testing in a pivotal NASH trial. Other implications include the potential future availability of a distinct oral therapy for NASH that may be relevant for patients, providers and caregivers seeking to prevent the progression and complications of this disease.

Efficacy and safety of imeglimin add-on to insulin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (TIMES 3): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial with a 36-week open-label extension period.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of imeglimin for up to 52 weeks as combination therapy with insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group phase 3 trial was performed at 35 sites in Japan. Eligible patients were individuals aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control with insulin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either imeglimin (1000 mg twice daily) or matched placebo, in combination with insulin, for 16 weeks. In a subsequent 36-week, open-label extension period, all patients received imeglimin 1000 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 16. RESULTS: In all, 108 and 107 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with imeglimin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, respectively. Compared with placebo, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 16 was -0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.80 to -0.40; P < 0.0001). This decrease was sustained up to 52 weeks with a mean decrease of -0.64% (95% CI -0.82 to -0.46) versus baseline. The incidence of patients experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment groups. The number of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia was similar in the two treatment groups. In patients receiving imeglimin, all hypoglycaemic events were mild in severity; no episodes required assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin significantly improved HbA1c in Japanese patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes by insulin and had a similar safety profile to placebo. The efficacy of imeglimin on top of insulin was sustained for 52 weeks. Imeglimin represents a potential new treatment option for this population as add-on to insulin therapy.

Long-term safety and efficacy of imeglimin as monotherapy or in combination with existing antidiabetic agents in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (TIMES 2): A 52-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of imeglimin for 52 weeks as monotherapy or combination therapy with existing antidiabetic agents in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TIMES 2 was a phase 3, pivotal, open-label trial including patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled despite diet/exercise or despite treatment with a single agent from one of several available classes of antidiabetic drugs along with diet/exercise. All patients received imeglimin 1000 mg twice-daily orally for 52 weeks as monotherapy or combination therapy. The primary endpoint was safety (adverse events, laboratory results, ECG). The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 714 patients received the following treatments: imeglimin monotherapy (n = 134), combination with an α-glucosidase inhibitor (n = 64), biguanide (n = 64), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4-I; n = 63), glinide (n = 64), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA; n = 70), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (n = 63), sulphonylurea (n = 127), or thiazolidinedione (n = 65). The percentage of patients experiencing at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 75.5%. Most of these events were mild or moderate in intensity. Serious TEAEs, none of them related to the study drug, occurred in 5.6% of all patients. No clinically significant changes in ECG, vital signs, physical examination, or laboratory tests were noted in any groups. At week 52, HbA1c decreased by 0.46% with imeglimin monotherapy, by 0.56%-0.92% with imeglimin as oral combination therapy, and by 0.12% with injectable GLP1-RA combination therapy. The greatest net HbA1c reduction (0.92%) occurred in patients receiving a DPP4-I in combination with imeglimin. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin provides well-tolerated, long-term safety and efficacy in both monotherapy and oral combination therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Rubus idaeus extract improves symptoms in knee osteoarthritis patients: results from a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most frequent cause of disability in elderly people. In daily practice, the main objective of the physician is to reduce patient symptoms using treatments without adverse effects. However, the most prescribed treatment to manage OA symptoms remains nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs which are associated with severe adverse effects. Therefore, we need a safe alternative to managing OA. One candidate is Rubus idaeus leaf extracts known to inhibit inflammatory responses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a 12-weeks intervention with an ethanolic extract from Rubus idaeus leaf on symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, monocentric trial of 198 participants with femorotibial osteoarthritis. Participants were randomized equally to receive one daily during 3 months either 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg, 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 200 mg, or 1 capsule of placebo. The participants were assessed at baseline and after one and three months of treatment. The primary endpoint was an absolute change of the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. The secondary endpoints were WOMAC global score, stiffness and function sub-scales, knee pain VAS score at walking, the Short Form (SF)-36, the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), the 20-m walk test, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders rate. Statistical analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: In the Intention-to-treat population, WOMAC pain was not significantly modified by Rubus idaeus leaf extract compared to placebo. In contrast, Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg after 12 weeks of treatment significantly reduced pain measured by the VAS. The mean pain decrease induced by Rubus ideaus leaf extract was over -7 mm which is clinically relevant and reached a clinically statistical difference compared to placebo with the highest dose. Rubus Ideaus was not significantly more efficient than the placebo on WOMAC global score, stiffness, and physical function subscores, IPAQ, SF-36, walking distance in treadmill test, SPPB, and evaluation of associated treatments needed to manage OA. CONCLUSION: Rubus idaeus leaf extract was well tolerated and effective to relieve pain in a patient with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03703024  (11/10/2018).

Efficacy and safety of imeglimin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of imeglimin monotherapy compared with placebo for 24 weeks in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging, phase 2b clinical trial, Japanese adults (age ≥ 20 years) with T2D either treatment-naïve or previously treated with one oral antidiabetes agent were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive orally imeglimin 500, 1000 or 1500 mg, or placebo twice-daily over a 24-week period. The primary endpoint was the placebo-adjusted change at week 24 in HbA1c. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with orally twice-daily placebo (n = 75), imeglimin 500 mg (n = 75), 1000 mg (n = 74) or 1500 mg (n = 75). At week 24, imeglimin significantly decreased HbA1c (difference vs. placebo: imeglimin 500 mg -0.52% [95% CI: -0.77%, -0.27%], imeglimin 1000 mg -0.94% [95% CI: -1.19%, -0.68%], imeglimin 1500 mg -1.00% [95% CI: -1.26%, -0.75%]; P < .0001 for all). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 68.0%, 62.2%, 73.3% and 68.0% of patients receiving imeglimin 500, 1000 or 1500 mg and placebo, respectively. A small increase in gastrointestinal adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea) occurred with the 1500 mg dose level. Hypoglycaemia was balanced among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin as monotherapy in Japanese patients with T2D was well tolerated and significantly improved glycaemic control with no significant increase in hypoglycaemic events versus placebo. Given the marginal increase in efficacy with the 1500 versus 1000 mg dose (along with the potential for gastrointestinal tolerability issues), a dose of 1000 mg twice-daily was selected for subsequent phase 3 studies.

6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer (PHARE): final analysis of a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the interim analysis of the Protocol for Herceptin as Adjuvant therapy with Reduced Exposure (PHARE) trial could not show that 6 months of adjuvant trastuzumab was non-inferior to 12 months. Here, we report the planned final analysis based on the prespecified number of occurring events. METHODS: PHARE is an open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer comparing 6 months versus 12 months of trastuzumab treatment concomitant with or following standard neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. The study was undertaken in 156 centres in France. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, operable, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the breast and either positive axillary nodes or negative axillary nodes but a tumour of at least 10 mm. Participants must have received at least four cycles of a chemotherapy for this breast cancer and have started receiving adjuvant trastuzumab-treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 6 months or 12 months of trastuzumab therapy duration between the third and sixth months of adjuvant trastuzumab. The randomisation was stratified by concomitant or sequential treatment with chemotherapy, oestrogen receptor status, and centre. The primary objective was non-inferiority in the intention-to-treat population in the 6-month group in terms of disease-free survival with a prespecified hazard margin of 1·15. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00381901. FINDINGS: 3384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 12 months (n=1691) or 6 months (n=1693) of adjuvant trastuzumab. One patient in the 12-month group and three patients in the 6-month group were excluded, so 1690 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At a median follow-up of 7·5 years (IQR 5·3-8·8), 704 events relevant to disease-free survival were observed (345 [20·4%] in the 12-month group and 359 [21·2%] in the 6-month group). The adjusted hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the 12-month group versus the 6-month group was 1·08 (95% CI 0·93-1·25; p=0·39). The non-inferiority margin was included in the 95% CI. No differences in effects pertaining to trastuzumab duration were found in any of the subgroups. After the completion of trastuzumab treatment, rare adverse events occurred over time and the safety analysis remained similar to the previously published report. In particular, we found no change in the cardiac safety comparison, and only three additional cases in which the left ventricular ejection fraction decreased to less than 50% have been reported in the 12-month group. INTERPRETATION: The PHARE study did not show the non-inferiority of 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab. Hence, adjuvant trastuzumab standard duration should remain 12 months. FUNDING: The French National Cancer Institute.

IqYmune® is an effective maintenance treatment for multifocal motor neuropathy: A randomised, double-blind, multi-center cross-over non-inferiority study vs Kiovig®-The LIME Study.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is the gold-standard for maintenance treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). This phase III, randomised, double-blind, multi-centre, active-control, crossover study, aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of IqYmune® relative to Kiovig®, primarily based on efficacy criteria. Twenty-two adult MMN patients, treated with any brand of IVIg (except Kiovig® or IqYmune®) at a stable maintenance dose within the range of 1 to 2 g/kg every 4 to 8 weeks, were randomised to receive either Kiovig® followed by IqYmune®, or IqYmune® followed by Kiovig®. Each product was administered for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference between IqYmune® and Kiovig® in mean assessments of modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) 10 sum score (strength of 5 upper-limb and 5 lower-limb muscle groups, on both sides, giving a score from 0 to 100) during the evaluation period (non-inferiority margin of Δ = 2). A linear mixed model analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of IqYmune® relative to Kiovig®, independently of the covariates (value at baseline, treatment period, and treatment sequence). The estimated "IqYmune® - Kiovig®" difference was -0.01, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to 0.48. The number of adverse reactions (ARs) and the percentage of patients affected were similar for the two products: 39 ARs in 10 patients with IqYmune® vs 32 ARs in 11 patients with Kiovig®. No thromboembolic events nor haemolysis nor renal impairment were observed. In this first clinical trial comparing two IVIg brands for maintenance treatment of MMN, efficacy and tolerability of both brands were similar.

Relative short-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine versus vortioxetine in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

Agomelatine and vortioxetine are antidepressants with different mechanisms of action compared to other pharmaceutical treatment options. The objective of this present analysis is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine (25-50 mg) compared to vortioxetine (10-15-20 mg) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison using placebo as a common control. The main outcomes were efficacy (response to treatment by Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale/Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and acceptability (withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse events). 10 agomelatine and 11 vortioxetine studies were included in the analysis. For efficacy, no difference was shown between agomelatine and vortioxetine (E[95% CI] = -0.03 [-0.12;0.05]). For acceptability, no significant difference was found between both antidepressants. These findings substantiate current understanding that most antidepressants are of similar average efficacy and tolerability. Such equivalent therapeutic benefit of both compounds, measured by a quantitative clinical research approach, has to be discussed with the knowledge of a qualitative estimation in routine practice.

A nationwide survey of the use of plerixafor in patients with lymphoid malignancies who mobilize poorly demonstrates the predominant use of the "on-demand" scheme of administration at French autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant programs.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy supported with autologous stem cell transplantation is a standard therapeutic option for a subset of patients with lymphoid malignancies. Cell procurement is nowadays done almost exclusively through cytapheresis, after mobilization of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) from the marrow to peripheral blood (PB). The egress of HSPCs out of hematopoietic niches occurs in various physiologic or nonhomeostatic situations; pharmacologic approaches include the administration of acutely myelosuppressive agents or hematopoietic growth factors such as recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF). The introduction of plerixafor, a first-of-its-class molecule that reversibly inhibits the interaction between the chemokine CXCL-12 (also known as SDF-1) and its receptor CXCR-4, has offered new opportunities for the so-called "poor mobilizers" who achieve insufficient mobilization and/or collection with conventional approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Because of the lack of consensus on a definition for poor mobilizers and the relatively high cost of plerixafor, French competent authorities have mandated a postmarketing survey on its use in routine practice. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We report here the results of this nationwide survey that confirms the clinical efficacy of plerixafor, even in the subset of patients who barely increased PB CD34+ cell count in response to rHuG-CSF-containing mobilization regimen. Furthermore, analysis of this registry showed that despite heterogeneity in medical practices, the early-"on-demand" or "preemptive"-introduction of plerixafor was widely used and did not result in an excess of prescriptions, beyond its expected use at the time when marketing authorization was granted.

Randomised, controlled trial of avocado-soybean unsaponifiable (Piascledine) effect on structure modification in hip osteoarthritis: the ERADIAS study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of avocado-soybean unsaponifiable-Expanscience (ASU-E) to slow radiographic progression in symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled 3 year trial. Patients with symptomatic (painful ≥1 year, Lequesne Index between 3 and 10) hip OA (American College of Rheumatology criteria) and a minimum joint space width (JSW) of the target hip between 1 and 4 mm on a pelvic radiograph were randomly assigned to 300 mg/day ASU-E or placebo. Standing pelvis, target hip anteroposterior (AP) and oblique views were taken annually. The primary outcome was JSW change at year 3, measured at the narrowest point on pelvic or target hip AP view (manual measure using a 0.1 mm graduated magnifying glass). The full analysis dataset (FAS) included all patients having at least two successive radiographs. An analysis of covariance Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements with Missing at Random (for missing data) was performed to compare adjusted 3 year JSW changes (primary outcome) and the percentages of 'progressors' (JSW loss≥0.5 mm) between groups. RESULTS: 399 patients were randomised (345 kept in the FAS), aged 62 (35-84) years, 54% women, mean body mass index 27 (SD 4) kg/m(2), mean symptom duration 4 (SD 5) years, 0-100 normalised Lequesne Index 30 (SD 9) and global pain visual analogue scale 37 (SD 23) mm. Mean baseline JSW was 2.8 (0.9) mm. There was no significant difference on mean JSW loss (-0.638 mm vs -0.672 mm, p=0.72, in the ASU-E and placebo groups, respectively) but there were 20% less progressors in the ASU-E than in the placebo group (40% vs 50%, respectively, p=0.040). No difference was observed on clinical outcomes. Safety was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: 3 year treatment with ASU-E reduces the percentage of JSW progressors, indicating a potential structure modifying effect in hip OA to be confirmed, and the clinical relevance requires further assessment.

Relative Bioavailability Study of Midazolam Intramuscularly Administered with the Needle-Free Auto-Injector ZENEO® in Healthy Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Intramuscular (IM) midazolam is indicated for the treatment of status epilepticus. Administration must be efficient to rapidly terminate prolonged seizures and prevent complications. The objective of this study was to compare, in terms of relative bioavailability and bioequivalence, IM midazolam injection by needle-free auto-injector, in different settings, to IM midazolam injection by a conventional syringe and needle. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, four-period crossover study, healthy adults received single doses of midazolam (10 mg) under fasting conditions. The reference treatment (conventional syringe) was administered once, on bare skin in the thigh. The tested treatment (the needle-free auto-injector ZENEO®) was administered three times: on bare skin in the thigh, on bare skin in the ventrogluteal area, and through clothing in the thigh. Repeated plasma samples were collected to obtain 36-h pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles. Primary PK parameters were area under the plasma concentration-time curve, from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUC0-t) and from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), and the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax). RESULTS: Forty adults were enrolled and included in the PK analysis set. In all comparisons, the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the least-squares geometric mean ratios for AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were within the bioequivalence range of 80-125%, with low intra-individual coefficients of variation (< 20.5% for all parameters in all comparisons). Bioequivalence was also met for Cmax in all comparisons except when comparing the tested treatment through clothing versus the reference treatment, where the 90% CI lower limit was slightly outside the bioequivalence range (78.8%). With all tested treatments Cmax was slightly lower, but early mean plasma concentrations (first 10 min post-dosing) were higher when compared to the reference treatment. In general, all treatments were well tolerated, with maximum sedation 0.5-1 h post-injection. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study establishes that IM midazolam injection on bare skin in the thigh with the ZENEO® is bioequivalent to IM midazolam injection with a syringe and needle. An acceptable relative bioavailability, compatible with emergency practice, was also shown in multiple settings. Higher mean concentrations within the first 10 min with the ZENEO® device, and quicker two-step injection suggest a faster onset of action, and thereby an earlier seizure termination, thus preventing the occurrence of prolonged seizure and neurological complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05026567. Registration first posted August 30, 2021, first patient enrolled May 9, 2022.

Seizures require urgent treatment when they last longer than 5 min. Indeed, when prolonged, seizures can lead to damage to the brain, coma, and ultimately death. Midazolam injected in the muscle (i.e., intramuscular (IM) injection) has become the first-line treatment of choice for long-lasting seizures and is usually administered with a syringe and 30-mm needle. The ZENEO^® needle-free auto-injector is an innovative, pre-filled, single-dose, disposable, ready-to-use, two-step device that could become an alternative method for midazolam IM administration. This study therefore compared midazolam IM injections with the ZENEO^® auto-injector versus IM injections with a conventional syringe and needle. The ZENEO^® auto-injector was tested in different conditions (on bare skin, through clothing, in the thigh, and in the hip) in healthy volunteers. The study showed, with a pharmacokinetic analysis (how much and how fast a drug is taken in the bloodstream), that midazolam absorption was similar in all tested conditions, indicating that the ZENEO^® auto-injector is a suitable method for midazolam administration. In addition, the study showed that in the first 10 min of the injection, the amount of midazolam in the blood seemed to be higher when injections were performed with the ZENEO^® auto-injector, suggesting that seizure treatment may start working sooner if injected with the device. This is particularly important and relevant in emergency situations and prehospital settings in order to prevent long-lasting seizures and irreversible damage to the brain (which can occur when a crisis lasts for 30 min) and ultimately improve the patient's outcome.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]). CONCLUSIONS: Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Risankizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]). CONCLUSIONS: Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Safety and efficacy of platelet glycoprotein VI inhibition in acute ischaemic stroke (ACTIMIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2a trial.

BACKGROUND: Antagonists of glycoprotein VI-triggered platelet activation used in combination with recanalisation therapies are a promising therapeutic approach in acute ischaemic stroke. Glenzocimab is an antibody fragment that inhibits the action of platelet glycoprotein VI. We aimed to determine and assess the safety and efficacy of the optimal dose of glenzocimab in patients with acute ischaemic stroke eligible to receive alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with dose-escalation (1b) and dose-confirmation (2a) phases (ACTIMIS) was done in 26 stroke centres in six European countries. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with disabling acute ischaemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6 or higher before alteplase administration. Patients were randomly assigned treatment using a central electronic procedure. Total administered dose at the end of the intravenous administration was 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 1b and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 2a. Treatment was initiated 4·5 h or earlier from stroke symptom onset in patients treated with alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. The sponsor, study investigator and study staff, patients, and central laboratories were all masked to study treatment until database lock. Primary endpoints across both phases were safety, mortality, and intracranial haemorrhage (symptomatic, total, and fatal), assessed in all patients who received at least a partial dose of study medication (safety set). The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03803007, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2019, and June 27, 2021, 60 recruited patients were randomly assigned to 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg glenzocimab, or to placebo in phase 1b (n=12 per group) and were included in the safety analysis. Glenzocimab 1000 mg was well tolerated and selected as the phase 2a recommended dose; from Oct 2, 2020, to June 27, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to glenzocimab 1000 mg (n=53) or placebo (n=53). One patient in the placebo group received glenzocimab in error and therefore 54 and 52, respectively, were included in the safety set. In phase 2a, the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was non-symptomatic haemorrhagic transformation, which occurred in 17 (31%) of 54 patients treated with glenzocimab and 26 (50%) of 52 patients treated with placebo. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in no patients treated with glenzocimab compared with five (10%) patients in the placebo group. All-cause deaths were lower with glenzocimab 1000 mg (four [7%] patients) than with placebo (11 [21%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Glenzocimab 1000 mg in addition to alteplase, with or without mechanical thrombectomy, was well tolerated, and might reduce serious adverse events, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality. These findings support the need for future research into the potential therapeutic inhibition of glycoprotein VI with glenzocimab plus alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. FUNDING: Acticor Biotech.

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and optimal biomarker enrichment strategy for nangibotide, a TREM-1 inhibitor, in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH): a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) pathway is associated with septic shock outcomes. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway in patients with activated TREM-1 might improve survival. Soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1), a potential mechanism-based biomarker, might facilitate enrichment of patient selection in clinical trials of nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator. In this phase 2b trial, we aimed to confirm the hypothesis that TREM1 inhibition might improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial assessed the efficacy and safety of two different doses of nangibotide compared with placebo, and aimed to identify the optimum treatment population, in patients across 42 hospitals with medical, surgical, or mixed intensive care units (ICUs) in seven countries. Non-COVID-19 patients (18-85 years) meeting the standard definition of septic shock, with documented or suspected infection (lung, abdominal, or urinary [in patients ≥65 years]), were eligible within 24 h of vasopressor initiation for the treatment of septic shock. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to intravenous nangibotide 0·3 mg/kg per h (low-dose group), nangibotide 1·0 mg/kg per h (high-dose group), or matched placebo, using a computer-generated block randomisation scheme (block size 3). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were grouped according to sTREM-1 concentrations at baseline (established from sepsis observational studies and from phase 2a change to data) into high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL). The primary outcome was the mean difference in total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from baseline to day 5 in the low-dose and high-dose groups compared with placebo, measured in the predefined high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL) population and in the overall modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included all-cause 28-day mortality, safety, pharmacokinetics, and evaluation of the relationship between TREM-1 activation and treatment response. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004827-36, and Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04055909. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2019, and April 11, 2022, of 402 patients screened, 355 were included in the main analysis (116 in the placebo group, 118 in the low-dose group, and 121 in the high-dose group). In the preliminary high sTREM-1 population (total 253 [71%] of 355; placebo 75 [65%] of 116; low-dose 90 [76%] of 118; high-dose 88 [73%] of 121), the mean difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 was 0·21 (95% CI -1·45 to 1·87, p=0·80) in the low-dose group and 1·39 (-0·28 to 3·06, p=0·104) in the high-dose group versus placebo. In the overall population, the difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 between the placebo group and low-dose group was 0·20 (-1·09 to 1·50; p=0·76),and between the placebo group and the high-dose group was 1·06 (-0·23 to 2·35, p=0·108). In the predefined high sTREM-1 cutoff population, 23 (31%) patients in the placebo group, 35 (39%) in the low-dose group, and 25 (28%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. In the overall population, 29 (25%) patients in the placebo, 38 (32%) in the low-dose, and 30 (25%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (111 [96%] patients in the placebo group, 113 [96%] in the low-dose group, and 115 [95%] in the high-dose group) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (28 [24%], 26 [22%], and 31 [26%]) was similar between all three groups. High-dose nangibotide led to a clinically relevant improvement in SOFA score (of two points or more) from baseline to day 5 over placebo in those with higher cutoff concentrations (≥532 pg/mL) of sTREM-1 at baseline. Low dose nangibotide displayed a similar pattern with lower magnitude of effect across all cutoff values. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not achieve the primary outcome of improvement in SOFA score at the predefined sTREM-1 value. Future studies are needed to confirm the benefit of nangibotide at higher concentrations of TREM-1 activation. FUNDING: Inotrem.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of TREM-1 inhibition with nangibotide in patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory support: the ESSENTIAL randomised, double-blind trial.

Background: Activation of the TREM-1 pathway is associated with outcome in life threatening COVID-19. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway with nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator may improve survival in TREM-1 activated patients (identified using the biomarker sTREM-1). Methods: Phase 2 double-blind randomized controlled trial assessing efficacy, safety, and optimum treatment population of nangibotide (1.0 mg/kg/h) compared to placebo. Patients aged 18-75 years were eligible within 7 days of SARS-CoV-2 documentation and within 48 h of the onset of invasive or non-invasive respiratory support because of COVID-19-related ARDS. Patients were included from September 2020 to April 2022, with a pause in recruitment between January and August 2021. Primary outcome was the improvement in clinical status defined by a seven-point ordinal scale in the overall population with a planned sensitivity analysis in the subgroup of patients with a sTREM-1 level above the median value at baseline (high sTREM-1 group). Secondary endpoints included safety and all-cause 28-day and day 60 mortality. The study was registered in EudraCT (2020-001504-42) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04429334). Findings: The study was stopped after 220 patients had been recruited. Of them, 219 were included in the mITT analysis. Nangibotide therapy was associated with an improved clinical status at day 28. Fifty-two (52.0%) of patients had improved in the placebo group compared to 77 (64.7%) of the nangibotide treated population, an odds ratio (95% CI) for improvement of 1.79 (1.02-3.14), p = 0.043. In the high sTREM-1 population, 18 (32.7%) of placebo patients had improved by day 28 compared to 26 (48.1%) of treated patients, an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.17 (0.96-4.90), p = 0.063 was observed. In the overall population, 28 (28.0%) of placebo treated patients were not alive at the day 28 visit compared to 19 (16.0%) of nangibotide treated patients, an absolute improvement (95% CI) in all-cause mortality at day 28, adjusted for baseline clinical status of 12.1% (1.18-23.05). In the high sTREM-1 population (n = 109), 23 (41.8%) of patients in the placebo group and 12 (22.2%) of patients in the nangibotide group were not alive at day 28, an adjusted absolute reduction in mortality of 19.9% (2.78-36.98). The rate of treatment emergent adverse events was similar in both placebo and nangibotide treated patients. Interpretation: Whilst the study was stopped early due to low recruitment rate, the ESSENTIAL study demonstrated that TREM-1 modulation with nangibotide is safe in COVID-19, and results in a consistent pattern of improved clinical status and mortality compared to placebo. The relationship between sTREM-1 and both risk of death and treatment response merits further evaluation of nangibotide using precision medicine approaches in life threatening viral pneumonitis. Funding: The study was sponsored by Inotrem SA.

Efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes in patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: Final results from the PRO-MSACTIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab, a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has been approved in Europe for the treatment of adult patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), on the basis of previous phase III studies. However, limited data were available on ocrelizumab efficacy in RMS according to the Lublin definition of activity (clinical and/or imaging features) used in the current drug label. The PRO-MSACTIVE study was thus designed to provide additional data on ocrelizumab efficacy according to this definition, and also on safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PRO-MSACTIVE is a national, multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase IV French study, conducted in patients with active RMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, RRMS, or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, SPMS). The primary endpoint, which was assessed at week (W) 48, was defined as the proportion of patients free of disease activity (defined by no relapses and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing nor new and/or enlarging T2 lesions using brain MRI). Disease activity, disability and PROs using 6 questionnaires for disease severity, quality of life, impact on work productivity, and treatment satisfaction were described at W24 and W48. Adverse events were described until W72. RESULTS: Among the 422 analyzed patients (RRMS: 376, SPMS: 46), 63.3% (95% CI [58.5%; 67.9%]) were free of disease activity at W48 (RRMS: 62.2% [57.1%; 67.2%], SPMS: 71.7% [56.5%; 84.0%]). A total of 358 patients (84.8%; RRMS: 84.6%, SPMS: 87.0%) were relapse-free up to W48, and the overall adjusted annualized relapse rate was 0.14 (RRMS: 0.15, SPMS: 0.09). Overall, 67.8% of patients (RRMS: 66.8%, SPMS: 76.1%) had no evidence of MRI activity (no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions [83.4%] and no new/enlarging T2 lesions [75.1%]); 58.5% of patients (RRMS: 57.7%, SPMS: 65.2%) achieved No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA: no relapses, no confirmed disability progression, and no MRI activity) at W48. All PRO scores were stable between the first dose of ocrelizumab and W48 and better outcomes were seen for patients having an EDSS score ≥4. Overall, 89.3% of patients reported adverse events, 62.3% adverse events assessed as related to ocrelizumab, and 8.5% serious adverse events. No serious infusion-related reactions, opportunistic infections, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, nor deaths were reported. No new safety signal was identified. CONCLUSION: These data confirm the efficacy of ocrelizumab in a pragmatic setting and its favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMS. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03589105; EudraCT identifier: 2018-000780-91).

Efficacy and Safety of Imeglimin Monotherapy Versus Placebo in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (TIMES 1): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Multicenter Phase 3 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of imeglimin, the first in a new class of oral antidiabetic agent, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 30 sites in Japan. Eligible participants were individuals aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, stable for ≥12 weeks prior to screening, and whose HbA1c was 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral imeglimin (1,000 mg twice daily) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. Investigators, participants, and the sponsor of the study remained blinded throughout the trial. The primary end point was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 24, and the key secondary end point was the percentage of responders (according to two definitions) at week 24. RESULTS: Between 26 December 2017 and 1 February 2019, 106 and 107 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with imeglimin and placebo, respectively. Compared with placebo, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline HbA1c at week 24 was -0.87% (95% CI -1.04 to -0.69 [-9.5 mmol/mol; 95% CI -11.4 to -7.5]; P < 0.0001). Forty-seven (44.3%) patients reported ≥1 adverse event in the imeglimin group versus 48 adverse events (44.9%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin significantly improved HbA1c in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo and had a similar safety profile to placebo. Imeglimin represents a potential new treatment option for this population.