Phase 2 Trial of Cemdisiran in Adult Patients with IgA Nephropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: IgA nephropathy is the most common primary GN. Clinical features of IgA nephropathy include proteinuria, which is the strongest known surrogate of progression to kidney failure. Complement pathway activation is a critical driver of inflammation and tissue injury in IgA nephropathy. Cemdisiran is an investigational RNA interference therapeutic that suppresses hepatic production of complement component 5 (C5), thereby potentially reducing proteinuria in IgA nephropathy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cemdisiran in adult patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney disease progression. METHODS: In this phase 2, 36-week, double-blind study, adult patients with IgA nephropathy and urine protein ≥1 g/24 hours were randomized (2:1) to subcutaneous cemdisiran 600 mg or placebo every 4 weeks in combination with the standard of care. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline at week 32 in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) measured by 24-hour urine collection. Additional end points included change from baseline in UPCR measured by spot urine, serum C5 level, and safety assessments. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were randomized (cemdisiran, N =22; placebo, N =9). Cemdisiran-treated patients had a placebo-adjusted geometric mean change in 24-hour UPCR of -37.4% (cemdisiran-adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline [SEM], 0.69 [0.10]) at week 32. Spot UPCR was consistent with 24-hour UPCR placebo-adjusted change of -45.8% (cemdisiran-adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline [SEM], 0.73 [0.11]). Mean (SD) change in serum C5 level from baseline at week 32 was -98.7% (1.2) with cemdisiran and 25.2% (57.7) with placebo. Over 36 weeks, most adverse events were mild or moderate and transient; the most common adverse event after cemdisiran treatment was injection-site reaction (41%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that treatment with cemdisiran resulted in a reduction of proteinuria at week 32 and was well tolerated.

Long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study of oral teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis: safety and efficacy results up to 8.5 years.

BACKGROUND: Teriflunomide, an oral disease-modifying therapy in development for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS), was well tolerated and effective in reducing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions in 179 RMS patients in a phase 2 36-week, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: A total of 147 patients who completed the core study entered an open-label extension. Teriflunomide patients continued their assigned dose, and placebo patients were re-allocated to teriflunomide, 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day. An interim analysis was performed at a cut-off on January 8 2010. RESULTS: The mean and median duration of study treatment, including both the core and extension phase, from baseline to the interim cut-off, was 5.6 years (standard deviation: 2.7 years) and 7.1 years (range: 0.05-8.5 years), respectively. Of 147 patients, 62 (42.2%) discontinued (19% due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)). The most common TEAEs were mild infections, fatigue, sensory disturbances and diarrhoea. No serious opportunistic infections occurred, with no discontinuations due to infection. Asymptomatic alanine aminotransferase increases (≤3× upper limit of normal (ULN)) were common (7 mg, 64.2%; 14 mg, 62.1%); increases >3×ULN were similar across groups (7 mg, 12.3%; 14 mg, 12.1%). Mild decreases in neutrophil counts occurred; none led to discontinuation. The incidence of malignancies was comparable to that of the general population, and cases were not reminiscent of those observed in immunocompromised patients. Annualised relapse rates remained low, minimal disability progression was observed, with a dose-dependent benefit with teriflunomide 14 mg for several MRI parameters. CONCLUSION: Teriflunomide had a favourable safety profile for up to 8.5 years.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in children with severe sepsis: a multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) is used for the treatment of adults with severe sepsis who have a high risk of dying. A phase 1b open-label study has indicated that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of DrotAA are similar in children and adults. We initiated the RESOLVE (REsearching severe Sepsis and Organ dysfunction in children: a gLobal perspectiVE) trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of the drug in children. METHODS: Children aged between 38 weeks' corrected gestational age and 17 years with sepsis-induced cardiovascular and respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive placebo or DrotAA (24 microg/kg/h) for 96 h. We used a prospectively defined, novel primary endpoint of Composite Time to Complete Organ Failure Resolution (CTCOFR) score. Secondary endpoints were 28-day mortality, major amputations, and safety. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00049764. FINDINGS: 477 patients were enrolled; 237 received placebo, and 240 DrotAA. Our results showed no significant difference between groups in CTCOFR score (p=0.72) or in 28-day mortality (placebo 17.5%; DrotAA, 17.2%; p=0.93). Although there was no difference in overall serious bleeding events during the 28-day study period (placebo 6.8%; DrotAA 6.7%; p=0.97), there were numerically more instances of CNS bleeding in the DrotAA group (11 [4.6%], vs 5 [2.1%] in placebo, p=0.13), particularly in children younger than 60 days. For CTCOFR score days 1-14, correlation coefficient was -0.016 (95% CI -0.106 to 0.74); relative risk for 28-day mortality was 1.06 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.46) for DrotAA compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Although we did not record any efficacy of DrotAA in children with severe sepsis, serious bleeding events were similar between groups and the overall safety profile acceptable, except in children younger than 60 days. However, we gained important insights into clinical and laboratory characteristics of childhood severe sepsis, and have identified issues that need to be addressed in future trials in critically ill children.

Dabrafenib and Trametinib Treatment in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer.

Purpose We report the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) combination therapy in BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer, a rare, aggressive, and highly lethal malignancy with poor patient outcomes and no systemic therapies with clinical benefit. Methods In this phase II, open-label trial, patients with predefined BRAF V600E-mutated malignancies received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Results Sixteen patients with BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer were evaluable (median follow-up, 47 weeks; range, 4 to 120 weeks). All patients had received prior radiation treatment and/or surgery, and six had received prior systemic therapy. The confirmed overall response rate was 69% (11 of 16; 95% CI, 41% to 89%), with seven ongoing responses. Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not reached as a result of a lack of events, with 12-month estimates of 90%, 79%, and 80%, respectively. The safety population was composed of 100 patients who were enrolled with seven rare tumor histologies. Common adverse events were fatigue (38%), pyrexia (37%), and nausea (35%). No new safety signals were detected. Conclusion Dabrafenib plus trametinib is the first regimen demonstrated to have robust clinical activity in BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer and was well tolerated. These findings represent a meaningful therapeutic advance for this orphan disease.

Comprehensive safety analysis of concomitant drotrecogin alfa (activated) and prophylactic heparin use in patients with severe sepsis.

PURPOSE: The safety of using heparin concomitantly with drotrecogin alfa (activated) {DrotAA} was explored in the XPRESS study. No heparin effect on mortality was observed. Safety results from that study are explored in more detail. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind trial of prophylactic heparin versus placebo in severe sepsis patients treated with DrotAA (24 microg/(kg h) for 96 h) was conducted at 224 sites in 20 countries. Patients were randomized 1:1:2 to receive unfractionated heparin (UFH) (5,000 Units twice daily) (n = 511), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (enoxaparin, 40 mg per day) (n = 493), or placebo (n = 990) every 12 h during the DrotAA infusion. RESULTS: Bleeding events during the DrotAA infusion period (Days 0-6) were higher in the heparin than placebo groups (10.8 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.049), but serious bleeding events were similar (heparin 2.3% vs. placebo 2.5%; p = 0.72) and central nervous system (CNS) bleeds were rare in both groups (0.3 vs. 0.3%). Fewer heparin patients experienced an ischemic stroke during infusion (0.3 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.018) and 28-day period (0.5 vs. 1.8%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of DrotAA with low-dose heparin in severe sepsis patients did not increase incidence of serious bleeding. Fewer ischemic strokes in the heparin group suggest heparin cessation should be avoided during DrotAA infusion.

Prophylactic heparin in patients with severe sepsis treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated).

RATIONALE: Patients with severe sepsis frequently receive prophylactic heparin during drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) treatment due to risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Biological plausibility exists for heparin to reduce DrotAA efficacy and/or increase bleeding. OBJECTIVES: Primary: demonstrate in adult patients with severe sepsis receiving DrotAA treatment that 28-day mortality was equivalent for patients treated with concomitant prophylactic heparin compared with placebo; secondary: safety and VTE incidence. METHODS: International, randomized, double-blind, phase 4, equivalence-design trial (n = 1994). Patients were eligible if indicated for and receiving DrotAA treatment under the country's approved label. Study drug (low molecular weight/unfractionated heparin) or placebo (saline) was administered every 12 hours during DrotAA infusion (24 ug/kg/hr for 96 hr). In patients on baseline heparin and randomized to placebo, heparin was stopped. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality was not equivalent between treatment groups. Heparin mortality was numerically lower (28.3 vs. 31.9%; p = 0.08). In the prospectively defined subgroup of patients exposed to heparin at baseline, patients receiving placebo experienced higher mortality (35.6 vs. 26.9%; p = 0.005). For safety, significant differences were observed during Days 0-6 for any bleeding event (placebo, n = 78; heparin, n = 105; p = 0.049) and ischemic stroke during Days 0-6 (placebo, n = 12; heparin, n = 3; p = 0.02) and Days 0-28 (placebo, n = 17; heparin, n = 5; p = 0.009). The VTE rate was low, with no statistical difference between groups (0-6 d, p = 0.60; 0-28 d, p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, concomitant prophylactic heparin was not equivalent, did not increase 28-day mortality, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with severe sepsis receiving DrotAA. Heparin discontinuation should be carefully weighed in patients considered for DrotAA treatment. XPRESS clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00049777). The study ID numbers are 6743; F1K-MC-EVBR.