Integrated Short-Term and Long-Term Efficacy of Topical Clascoterone Cream 1% in Patients Aged 12 Years or Older With Acne Vulgaris.

BACKGROUND: Clascoterone cream 1% is approved for the treatment of acne vulgaris in patients aged 12 years or older based on results from two identical pivotal Phase 3 trials. Integrated efficacy of clascoterone in patients aged 12 years or older with acne vulgaris from the pivotal trials (NCT02608450 and NCT02608476) and long-term extension (LTE) study (NCT02682264) is reported. METHODS: In the pivotal trials, patients with moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris were randomized 1:1 to twice-daily application of clascoterone cream 1% or vehicle for 12 weeks; they could then enter the LTE study, where all patients applied clascoterone to the face and, if desired, trunk for up to 9 additional months. Efficacy was assessed from treatment success based on Investigator's Global Assessment scores (IGA 0/1) in patients aged 12 years or older in the intention-to-treat population; lesion counts were assessed through week 12. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation in the pivotal studies and were not imputed in the LTE study. RESULTS: Of 1421 patients enrolled, 1143 (clascoterone, 576; vehicle, 567) completed week 12; 600 entered and 343 completed the LTE study. The treatment success rate and most lesion count reductions following clascoterone vs placebo treatment reached statistical significance at week 12; the overall treatment success rate increased to 30.2% for facial acne after 12 months and 31.7% for truncal acne after 9 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of clascoterone cream 1% for the treatment of acne vulgaris continued to increase over time for up to 12 months in patients aged 12 years or older with acne vulgaris.   J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(1):1278-1283.     doi:10.36849/JDD.7719.

Treatment Satisfaction and Acceptability of 20% Aminolevulinic Acid Photodynamic Therapy for the Treatment of Actinic Keratoses of the Face, Scalp, and Upper Extremities.

Background: Actinic keratoses (AKs) are precancerous, dysplastic, epidermal lesions caused by chronic sun exposure that may progress to squamous cell carcinoma. Aminolevulinic acid 20% solution with blue light photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) has previously been shown to be superior to vehicle plus PDT (VEH-PDT) for treatment of AKs of the face, scalp, and upper extremities. Objective: We report detailed patient satisfaction data for ALA-PDT. Methods: Patient satisfaction for ALA-PDT versus VEH-PDT and patient-reported acceptability of ALA-PDT versus previous treatments for AKs were assessed in three randomized, vehicle-controlled studies (two Phase II and one Phase III) in adults. Patients in the Phase II studies were treated on the scalp and/or face, and those in the Phase III study were treated on the upper extremities. Results: A total of 234, 166, and 269 patients were enrolled in the two Phase II studies and one Phase III study, respectively; overall, 79.8 percent of patients were male. Overall treatment satisfaction ranged from 79 to 88 percent for ALA-PDT, compared to 35 to 56 percent for VEH-PDT. Patients generally considered ALA-PDT to be equivalent to or more acceptable than prior treatments, including cryotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod, previous PDT, and surgery. Similar proportions of patients receiving ALA-PDT or VEH-PDT on the upper extremities considered in-office time, side effects/adverse events (AEs), and duration of side effects/AEs to be acceptable. Limitations: The majority of patients were male, and no statistical comparisons were conducted. Conclusion: Patients were generally satisfied with ALA-PDT for the treatment of AKs of the face, scalp, and upper extremities and considered ALA-PDT to be equal to or more acceptable than previous treatments. Trial Registry Information: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01475955; NCT02239679; NCT02137785.

Concomitant medication use does not appear to alter long-term efficacy of sonidegib for advanced basal cell carcinoma: a post hoc analysis based on the 42-month BOLT study.

BACKGROUND: Sonidegib is approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) in patients not amenable to surgery or radiation. The BOLT trial demonstrated durable efficacy of sonidegib in laBCC patients over 42 months. BCC is most common in the elderly, who often take chronic medications. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of sonidegib (200 mg daily) in laBCC patients on select concomitant medications. MATERIALS & METHODS: In the Phase II BOLT study, laBCC patients were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 mg:800 mg daily. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per central review. Post hoc assessments included ORR and duration of response (DOR) per investigator review for patients on concomitant medications. RESULTS: At 42 months, ORR for laBCC patients taking sonidegib 200 mg daily (n=66) was 71.2% and DOR was 15.7 months according to investigator review. Patients on select concomitant medications (n=37) had an ORR of 73.0%; DOR was not estimable. CONCLUSION: Administration of sonidegib with concomitant medications, excluding strong cytochrome P450 3A4/5 inhibitors/inducers, does not appear to alter its efficacy in laBCC patients.

Evaluating Use of the Octreotide Acetate Pen Injector in a Summative Human Factors Validation Study.

OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous injections of octreotide acetate require chronic administration by health care providers (HCPs). We aimed to validate the safe and effective use of the octreotide acetate pen injector, its labeling, and instructions for use (IFU) by patients, caregivers, and HCPs and to mitigate use-related risks. METHODS: This summative human factors validation study enrolled adults with neuroendocrine tumors and related diarrhea or flushing, adult caregivers, and HCPs. Before simulated use, participants self-familiarized as desired. Each participant was assigned 1 injection site for administration into an injection pad. The first of 2 unaided injections assessed first use and required priming; the second assessed routine use and dose change. Participants gave subjective feedback after each injection and completed knowledge probes and reading comprehension questions after the second injection. RESULTS: The study enrolled 45 participants (15 per group). Forty-two participants completed the first injection successfully by administering the dose correctly. Three participants did not dose successfully; 3 failed to prime the pen, and 1 failed to dial the correct dose. Besides dosing, 2 participants failed to remove the needle after injection. Forty-four participants completed the second injection, but 1 participant failed to dial the correct dose. No other errors were observed. Overall success rates on knowledge probes and reading comprehension questions were 99.1% and 99.6%, respectively. All participants found the IFU easy to follow and understand. CONCLUSION: The octreotide acetate pen injector, labeling, and IFU enabled intended users to administer subcutaneous octreotide safely and effectively. The residual risks of use are low and acceptable.

Assessment of various efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma receiving sonidegib: results from a preplanned sensitivity analysis.

BACKGROUND: The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. RESULTS: Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC (n = 66) was 56.1% (43.3-68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7-81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8-72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0-84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

Effects of Sonidegib Following Dose Reduction and Treatment Interruption in Patients with Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma During 42-Month BOLT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sonidegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and, depending on regulatory approval, metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Results from the BOLT study demonstrated robust efficacy and continued tolerability through 42 months. This analysis evaluated the impact of sonidegib dose reductions and interruptions in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma through 42 months. METHODS: BOLT was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 2 study. Adults with no previous Hedgehog pathway inhibitor therapy were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 or 800 mg once daily. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Dose modifications were permitted in patients unable to tolerate the dosing schedule or if a treatment-related adverse event was suspected. RESULTS: The incidence of dose interruptions was similar between the 200- and 800-mg groups (68.4% vs 65.3%, respectively). Dose reductions occurred more frequently in patients receiving sonidegib 800 mg (36.7%) than 200 mg (16.5%). Overall response rate for all patients receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily was 48.1% and was similar to those of patients without dose reduction or interruption (48.5%) and patients with at least one dose reduction or interruption (46.2%). CONCLUSION: Dose reductions and interruptions were practical and did not impact the efficacy of sonidegib. In patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma who necessitate long-term treatment, dose interruptions may be beneficial for continued treatment and disease control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01327053.

Key Clinical Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Sonidegib or Vismodegib: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Sonidegib is approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) in the USA, EU, Switzerland, and Australia and metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) in Switzerland and Australia in patients not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy. Vismodegib is approved to treat patients with mBCC, recurrent laBCC, or those not candidates for surgery or radiation. There is no head-to-head trial comparing Hedgehog inhibitors. We describe time to onset and severity of adverse events (AEs) in two studies reporting cumulative AE incidence every treatment cycle: the sonidegib phase 2 BOLT study and the expanded-access, open-label vismodegib study. METHODS: This analysis included patients with histologically confirmed laBCC or mBCC from BOLT who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily (QD) and patients from the vismodegib study who received vismodegib 150 mg QD. Cumulative occurrence of AEs and median time to AE onset were calculated on 30-day cycles for sonidegib and 28-day cycles for vismodegib. AEs were graded for severity using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Only common (at least 15% incidence) AEs were analyzed in this study. RESULTS: Over 18 treatment cycles, the most common all-grade AEs for sonidegib and vismodegib were muscle spasm (54.4% vs 70.6%; P = 0.0236), alopecia (49.4% vs 58.0%; no significant difference [NS]), and dysgeusia (43.0% vs 70.6%; P = 0.0003); incidences of diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and weight decrease were 31.6% vs 25.2% (NS), 39.2% vs 19.3% (P = 0.0032), 32.9% vs 19.3% (P = 0.0429), and 30.4% vs 16.0% (P = 0.0217), respectively. Sonidegib-treated patients had more delayed median time to onset for all AEs than vismodegib-treated patients, except fatigue and weight decrease (NS). Most AEs reported were grade ≤ 2. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis suggests lower overall incidence and slower onset of certain AEs in patients treated with sonidegib compared with vismodegib. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the relevance of these findings needs further studies to provide conclusive evidence.

Evaluation of the Octreotide Acetate Pen Injector and its Instructions for Use in a Formative Human Factors Study.

INTRODUCTION: Octreotide acetate subcutaneous injection is indicated to treat acromegaly and the symptoms of carcinoid tumors and vasoactive intestinal peptide tumors (VIPomas). This formative human factors study assessed the octreotide acetate pen injector and accompanying instructions for use (IFU) with self-trained participants. METHODS: The study enrolled patients with diagnoses of acromegaly, carcinoid tumors, or VIPomas and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) who treat patients with these diagnoses. The IFU provided a stepwise process with illustrations to train participants on using the pen injector. Participants familiarized themselves with the pen injector and the IFU before administering 2 unaided injections into skin-like pads; administering the full dose into the pad was considered a successful injection. The investigators evaluated each injection by performance measures-specific tasks necessary to safely and correctly administer the medication-and subjective measures, which included participant comments, feedback from questions, and suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: The study enrolled 11 participants-8 patients and 3 HCPs. Participants had a success rate of 100% for both injections. Errors included 1 participant priming the pen with the incorrect dose and 2 participants not holding the injector button for 10 s after the injection. Neither error led to a failed injection. To improve the IFU, participants suggested changing the order of wording on the priming step, clarifying illustrations of the plunger, and stronger indications to hold the injector button. CONCLUSION: The octreotide pen injector and IFU were usable by self-trained participants. Participant errors and suggestions provided a foundation for recommendations to improve the IFU.

A Review of Hedgehog Inhibitors Sonidegib and Vismodegib for Treatment of Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common malignancy in fair-skinned populations. Most cases are successfully treated with surgery, but in advanced BCC—including locally advanced BCC and metastatic BCC—surgery is likely to result in substantial morbidity or unlikely to be effective. In those patients, the systemic Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) sonidegib and vismodegib are the only approved pharmacologic treatment option. Although a number of clinical studies highlight the similarities and differences between the two HHIs, no head-to-head clinical comparison is available. Results from the pivotal BOLT and ERIVANCE clinical studies for sonidegib and vismodegib, respectively, demonstrate similar efficacy measured by objective response rate, complete response rate, and histologic tumor subtype. Safety results for both studies are comparable with similar common adverse events reported for muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. A notable difference between sonidegib and vismodegib is their respective pharmacokinetic profiles with sonidegib reaching peak concentration in plasma within 2–4 hours of dosing and steady state in plasma achieved by week 17 of treatment, while vismodegib reaches peak plasma concentration approximately 2 days after a single dose and steady state within 21 days of repeated dosing. This review compares efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published literature to date. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):156-165. doi:10.36849/JDD.5657 THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

The effect of sonidegib (LDE225) on the pharmacokinetics of bupropion and warfarin in patients with advanced solid tumours.

AIMS: We evaluated the potential effect of sonidegib at an oral dose of 800 mg once daily (QD) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the probe drugs warfarin (CYP2C9) and bupropion (CYP2B6). METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label study to evaluate the effect of sonidegib on the PK of the probe drugs warfarin and bupropion in patients with advanced solid tumours. Cohort 1 patients received a single warfarin 15-mg dose on Day 1 of the run-in period and on Cycle 2 Day 22 (C2D22) of sonidegib administration. Cohort 2 patients received a single bupropion 75-mg dose on Day 1 of run-in period and on C2D22 of sonidegib administration. Sonidegib 800 mg QD oral dosing began on Cycle 1 Day 1 of a 28-day cycle after the run-in period in both cohorts. RESULTS: The geometric means ratios [90% confidence interval] for (S)-warfarin with and without sonidegib were: area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUCinf ) 1.15 [1.07, 1.24] and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) 0.88 [0.81, 0.97]; and for (R)-warfarin were: AUCinf 1.10 [0.98, 1.24] and Cmax 0.93 [0.87, 1.0]. The geometric means ratios [90% confidence interval] of bupropion with and without sonidegib were: AUCinf 1.10 [0.99, 1.23] and Cmax 1.16 [0.95, 1.42]. Sonidegib 800 mg had a safety profile that was similar to that of lower dose sonidegib 200 mg and was unaffected by single doses of the probe drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Sonidegib dosed orally at 800 mg QD (higher than the Food and Drug Administration-approved dose) did not impact the PK or pharmacodynamics of warfarin (CYP2C9 probe substrate) or the PK of bupropion (CYP2B6 probe substrate).

Expression of Glioma-associated oncogene homolog 1 as biomarker with sonidegib in advanced basal cell carcinoma.

The pivotal BOLT (Basal cell carcinoma Outcomes with LDE225 [sonidegib] Treatment) study established the durable efficacy and manageable toxicity of sonidegib 200 mg once daily (QD) through 42 months in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). This secondary analysis used expression of Glioma-associated oncogene homolog 1 (GLI1) as a biomarker to assess the extent of Hedgehog pathway inhibition by sonidegib in patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC). The study enrolled 230 patients, 79 and 151 receiving sonidegib 200 and 800 mg QD, respectively. At week 17, GLI1 expression was reduced from baseline by a median percentage (95% confidence interval) of 88.7% (54.6%-93.0%) and 97.0% (77.5%-98.9%) for aggressive laBCC, 97.5% (80.3%-98.8%) and 95.0% (80.7%-97.5%) for nonaggressive laBCC, and 99.1% (96.4%-99.6%) and 99.3% (95.9%-99.9%) for mBCC in the 200 and 800 mg groups, respectively. Substantial repression of GLI1 was observed in patient subgroups stratified by age, sex, BCC cytological subtype, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lesion site, baseline number of BCCs, and prior radiotherapy. Results support further studies on the inhibition of Hedgehog pathway genes by sonidegib in patients with laBCC and mBCC.