A randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluating bioequivalence of two N-acetylcysteine 2% oral solution formulations in healthy subjects
.

OBJECTIVE: N-acetylcysteine is a mucolytic agent used to treat bronchopulmonary diseases associated with airway mucus hypersecretion. The bioequivalence of a new oral N-acetylcysteine 2% formulation was evaluated relative to an appropriate reference product. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized, crossover study assessed the bioequivalence of a new N-acetylcysteine 2% oral solution compared to an approved reference N-acetylcysteine 2% oral solution in healthy subjects in terms of pharmacokinetics, including area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve of N-acetylcysteine plasma concentrations from time 0 to the last measurable sampling time point and the maximum postdose concentration. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric means of the two pharmacokinetic parameters with baseline correction were entirely within the range of 80 - 125%. RESULTS: 46 participants were randomized. The ratios of the geometric means for the test vs. reference treatment, with baseline correction, were 1.0961 (90% confidence interval: 1.0228, 1.1746) for area under the plasma concentration curve of test N-acetylcysteine plasma concentrations and 1.0938 (90% confidence interval: 1.0142, 1.1796) for maximum postdose concentration; both were within the predefined range to demonstrate bioequivalence. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate and not considered study drug related. CONCLUSION: The new N-acetylcysteine 2% oral solution was found to be bioequivalent to the marketed reference formulation. Treatments were generally safe and well tolerated.
.

Evaluation of the warming sensation, acceptability, and local tolerability of an acetylcysteine oral solution containing the flavoring agent IFF flavor 316282 in the treatment of productive cough
.

OBJECTIVE: This open-label study sought to evaluate the warming sensation produced by IFF flavor 316282 in an acetylcysteine oral solution in subjects with productive cough. MATERIALS: 2% ace-tylcysteine oral solution (200 mg per 10 mL) containing IFF flavor 316282. METHODS: Subjects (N = 57; mean age 38.7 years; 58% female) with a productive cough lasting < 7 days and rated as mild to moderate in severity received 10 mL of study product. Warming sensation intensity was assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale, its onset and duration using stopwatches, its acceptability using a 9-point scale (from "dislike extremely" to "like extremely") and the taste, texture, and overall acceptability of the solution using 5-point scales (from "unacceptable" to "excellent"). RESULTS: 53 (93.0%) subjects perceived a warming sensation within 10 minutes of swallowing the solution; median onset was ~ 14 seconds, and median duration was ~ 2.8 minutes. Warming sensation intensity increased from baseline by a mean of 29.2 mm when evaluated 60 seconds after ingestion. 30 subjects (52.6%) thought the warming sensation was "just about right"; 25 (43.9%) considered it "too weak" or "much too weak." Most subjects had positive overall ratings ("fair," "good," or "excellent") of the taste (79.0%), texture (96.5%), and solution (91.2%). No treatment-emergent adverse events were reported, and no evidence of oral mucosal irritation was found. CONCLUSION: The addition of IFF flavor 316282 to a 2% acetylcysteine oral solution produced a warming sensation with rapid onset and relatively short duration, which the majority of subjects found acceptable.
.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Measure Mouth Moisturization and Dry Mouth Relief in Dry Mouth Subjects Using Dry Mouth Products.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined ratings of two subjective aspects (moisturization and dry mouth relief) that may be changed following the use of dry mouth relief products (an oral gel, an oral rinse, or a mouth spray), in comparison to water over a period of four hours following a single supervised use on two separate occasions. METHODS: This was a single-center, two site, randomized, examiner blind, four treatment arm, stratified (by dry mouth screening score at baseline), parallel group study in healthy subjects with a self-reported feeling of dry mouth. Prior to product use, subjects rated their current subjective perception of moisturization and dry mouth on an 11-point scale. Subjects then rated the two questions immediately after product use and 30, 60, 90, 120, and 240 minutes later. At the 240-minute time point, subjects also rated global efficacy questions regarding "overall" and "long-lasting" moisturization and dry mouth relief, and overall product opinion. Subjects then used their assigned products at home for three days and the procedures were repeated on Day 4. RESULTS: In total, 300 subjects were randomized to treatment. Compared with water, all test products showed statistically significantly greater improvements over baseline on both Day 1 and Day 4 at most time points, on the area under the curve from baseline for the moisturization and dryness questions, and after 240 minutes for the global efficacy and overall opinion assessments (all p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-dosing assessments on Day 1 versus Day 4 (p < 0.001) for both efficacy questions. Products were generally well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Three different types of dry mouth relief products were shown to provide significant relief of dry mouth and increased feelings of moisturization compared to water using subjective questionnaires.

Bioavailability, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilar infliximab (BOW015) compared to reference infliximab.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar infliximab (BOW015) to reference infliximab (rIFX) in healthy volunteers and to establish bioequivalence. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study, subjects received either BOW015 or rIFX. Both drugs were administered as a single IV 5 mg/kg dose over 2 hours on day 1. PK sampling occurred 10 times over 3 days and during safety and immunogenicity follow-up on day 4 and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12 weeks after the infusion. RESULTS: Of the 84 healthy male Caucasian subjects randomized, 43 received BOW015 and 41 received rIFX. PK parameters (geometric mean) for BOW015 vs. rIFX were as follows; C(max) 142.47 vs. 126.74 µg/mL, AUC(0-t) 36,211 vs. 34,304 h×µg/mL, and AUC(0-inf) 36,775 vs. 34,801 h×µg/mL. The point estimates of the BOW015/rIFX geometric mean ratios (90% CI) were; C(max) 1.13 (1.07 - 1.18), AUC(0-t) 1.06 (0.98 - 1.14), and AUC(0-inf) 1.06 (0.98 - 1.15). Overall, anti-drug antibodies were detected in 18.6% of BOW015-treated subjects and 24.4% of rIFX-treated subjects. A total of 26 (60.5%) subjects in the BOW015 group reported 50 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and 27 (65.9%) subjects in the rIFX group reported 54 TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence of BOW015 to rIFX is demonstrated as 90% CIs for the study drug mean ratios of C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-inf) were within the log-transformed ± 20% equivalence range of 0.80 - 1.25. Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable.

Evaluation of the Oral Tolerance of Three Fluoride Toothpaste Formulations in a Dry Mouth Population: Results from Two Randomized Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the oral tolerance of three experimental toothpaste formulations containing sodium fluoride (NaF), compared with two marketed sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP)-containing biotène® toothpastes, in a dry mouth population after 14 days (primary objective) and 7 days (secondary objective) of use. METHODS: Toothpastes were tested in two separate dual-site, examiner-blind, randomized, parallel group studies in subjects (35-84 years) with self-reported dry mouth. Oral soft tissue (OST) and oral hard tissue (OHT) examinations were performed at screening, followed by a 7- to 28-day wash-in period using a control toothpaste. Subjects were randomized to receive a NaF-containing toothpaste (Study 1: commercially available toothpaste Pronamel® for Children, n = 82; Study 2: experimental plaque biofilm-loosening formula [PBF] toothpaste, n = 79; or experimental Gentle Mint toothpaste, n = 78) or a reference toothpaste (Study 1: biotène® Fresh Mint Original toothpaste [previously marketed formulation], n = 82; Study 2: biotène® Gentle Mint Gel toothpaste [previously marketed formulation], n = 77) during the 14-day treatment phase. Subjects brushed their teeth twice daily for one timed minute with a ribbon of toothpaste to cover the head of the toothbrush provided. Subjects received further OST and OHT examinations at Day 1 and Day 15, and an additional OST examination at Day 8. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were reported throughout the study. RESULTS: Study 1: At Day 15, 42 oral treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 33 subjects, of which seven in five subjects (commercially available toothpaste Pronamel for Children: n = 2; control: n = 3) were considered to be treatment-related. One SAE (dyspnea) was reported in a participant who was randomized but withdrew from the study before receiving the allocated toothpaste. Study 2: At Day 15, 41 oral TEAEs were reported in 38 subjects, of which two in two subjects (experimental Gentle Mint toothpaste: n = 1; control: n = 1) were considered treatment-related, according to the investigator. No SAEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In both studies, the experimental and reference toothpastes were well tolerated after 7 and 14 days of use. The experimental NaF-containing toothpastes offer potential alternatives to individuals with dry mouth.

Clinical study to monitor dentinal hypersensitivity with episodic use of a desensitising dentifrice.

OBJECTIVES/AIMS: To evaluate continuous and episodic twice-daily usage regimens of a desensitising dentifrice containing 5% calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this exploratory, single-centre, randomised, examiner-blind study, subjects with dentinal hypersensitivity were randomised to continuous (24 weeks) use of a 5% CSPS-containing dentifrice or episodic use of the dentifrice comprising two 8-week treatment periods separated by 8 weeks' use of a standard fluoride dentifrice. Sensitivity was assessed by tactile threshold (Yeaple probe) and evaporative (air) sensitivity (Schiff sensitivity score). Other measures included labelled magnitude scales to assess subjects' responses to the evaporative stimulus, the Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire and a tooth sensitivity question. RESULTS: Seventy-six subjects were randomised to continuous (n=38) or episodic (n=38) use. Small but statistically significant improvements from baseline in Schiff sensitivity scores were observed at weeks 8, 16 and 24 with both regimens (all P<0.05). Increases from baseline in tactile threshold were not statistically significant. No significant between-regimen difference was observed for any endpoint. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. DISCUSSION: Dentifrice containing 5% CSPS improved dentinal hypersensitivity with both episodic and continuous twice-daily usage regimens over 24 weeks and was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: No performance differences were observed between the two usage regimens.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds. METHODS: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.