Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
EClinicalMedicine ; 68: 102364, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38586479

RESUMEN

Background: RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833. Findings: Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population). Interpretation: RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned. Funding: Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

2.
Ther Innov Regul Sci ; 58(2): 368-379, 2024 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38190028

RESUMEN

The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug (IND) Final Rule (US FDA, Final rule: Investigational new drug safety reporting requirements for human drug and biological products and safety reporting requirements for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies in humans, 2010) applies to all human drugs and biological products being studied under an IND. The Final Rule specifies that a sponsor must file an IND safety report for any Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) of a medicinal product being investigated. To make a proper SUSAR classification, sponsors need to go beyond conventional Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) with an interdisciplinary effort, using all relevant data (including data outside clinical trials), to make judgments on the possibility of serious adverse events being caused by the study drug-rather than the underlying condition of the patient or a concomitant therapy. Ball et al. (Ball et al. in Ther Innov Regul Sci 55:705-716, 2021) have reported on how the Final Rule has been implemented by large pharmaceutical companies. This paper explores the experiences of small sponsor companies regarding the Final Rule, to understand the current challenges that they have been facing to meet aggregate IND safety reporting requirements.


Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos , Drogas en Investigación , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Drogas en Investigación/efectos adversos , Equivalencia Terapéutica , United States Food and Drug Administration
3.
Headache ; 60(10): 2220-2231, 2020 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33165938

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the onset of preventive efficacy with eptinezumab in patients with migraine. BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab is a monoclonal antibody inhibiting calcitonin gene-related peptide approved as an intravenously administered treatment for the prevention of migraine. METHODS: Patients who received eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo in PROMISE7-1 (episodic migraine; 100 mg, n = 221; 300 mg, n = 222; placebo, n = 222) or PROMISE7-2 (chronic migraine; 100 mg, n = 356; 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) were included. Testing of the percentage of patients with a migraine on day 1 after dosing was prespecified and alpha-controlled. In further exploration of this prespecified endpoint, a post hoc closed testing procedure, which controlled the false-positive (type 1) error rate, provided a statistically rigorous evaluation of migraine prevention onset. The procedure involved up to 84 tests of significance, all of which were performed in sequence until the first nonsignificant result. RESULTS: For both studies, all tests for significance for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, from days 1-84 through day 1 alone, achieved nominal significance (P < .05), indicating that eptinezumab was fully effective beginning on day 1. Over each interval, the treatment effect was comparable to the effect over weeks 1-12. Mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days for the primary endpoint period ranged from -3.9 to -4.9, -4.1 to -4.9, and -2.2 to -3.2 for eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, and placebo, respectively, in PROMISE7-1 and from -7.2 to -8.0, -7.9 to -8.2, and -4.3 to -5.6, respectively, in PROMISE7-2. The difference from placebo (95% confidence interval) in day 1 treatment effect was -2.2 (-4.1, -0.3) and -2.5 (-4.4, -0.6) days/month for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively, in PROMISE7-1, and was -3.8 (-5.6, -2.0) and -4.0 (-5.8, -2.1) days/month for 100 and 300 mg, respectively, in PROMISE7-2. CONCLUSIONS: The migraine preventive effect of eptinezumab is rapid and sustained in patients with episodic or chronic migraine, with onset of optimal preventive efficacy observed on the day following the initial dose.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/farmacología , Trastornos Migrañosos/prevención & control , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Administración Intravenosa , Adulto , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Enfermedad Crónica , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Tiempo
4.
Circulation ; 110(8): 921-7, 2004 Aug 24.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15302780

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Albuminuria is an established risk marker for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Albuminuria can be reduced with drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We questioned whether the short-term drug-induced change in albuminuria would predict the long-term cardioprotective efficacy of RAS intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from Reduction in Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL), a double-blind, randomized trial in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy, focusing on the relationship between the prespecified cardiovascular end point (composite) or hospitalization for heart failure and baseline or reduction in albuminuria. Patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3 g/g creatinine) had a 1.92-fold (95% CI, 1.54 to 2.38) higher risk for the cardiovascular end point and a 2.70-fold (95% CI, 1.94 to 3.75) higher risk for heart failure compared with patients with low albuminuria (<1.5 g/g). Among all available baseline risk markers, albuminuria was the strongest predictor of cardiovascular outcome. The association between albuminuria and cardiovascular outcome was driven by those patients who also had a renal event. Modeling of the initial 6-month change in risk parameters showed that albuminuria reduction was the only predictor for cardiovascular outcome: 18% reduction in cardiovascular risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria and a 27% reduction in heart failure risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: Albuminuria is an important factor predicting cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Reducing albuminuria in the first 6 months appears to afford cardiovascular protection in these patients.


Asunto(s)
Albuminuria/tratamiento farmacológico , Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Nefropatías Diabéticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Losartán/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Albuminuria/etiología , Angina Inestable/epidemiología , Angina Inestable/etiología , Biomarcadores , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología , Nefropatías Diabéticas/etiología , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/etiología , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Tablas de Vida , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/epidemiología , Infarto del Miocardio/etiología , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento
5.
J Biopharm Stat ; 14(2): 349-58, 2004 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15206532

RESUMEN

An industry survey was conducted by a PhRMA/FDA Working Group on Active Control Trials in the summer of 2002 in preparation for a non-inferiority workshop sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA). Its objective was to understand the industry practices in the design and analysis of active control studies and to identify areas where regulatory guidances are most needed. The survey was sent to all major research-based pharmaceutical companies that were members of PhRMA in April 2002, and results were presented at a PhRMA workshop, held in Washington, D.C., on November 4-5, 2002. This paper is a written summary of the survey findings.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos Controlados como Asunto/normas , Recolección de Datos/estadística & datos numéricos , Industria Farmacéutica/estadística & datos numéricos , Industria Farmacéutica/normas , Humanos
6.
Kidney Int ; 65(6): 2309-20, 2004 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15149345

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria or albuminuria is an established risk marker for progressive renal function loss. Albuminuria can be effectively lowered with antihypertensive drugs that interrupt the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We investigated whether albuminuria could not only serve as a marker of renal disease, but also function as a monitor of the renoprotective efficacy of RAS intervention by the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, losartan, in patients with diabetic nephropathy. METHODS: The data from the RENAAL (Reduction in End Points in Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study, a double-blind, randomized trial, were used to examine the effects of losartan on the renal outcome [i.e., the primary composite end point of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death] in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. We examined the effect of the degree of albuminuria at baseline, initial antiproteinuric response to therapy, and the degree of remaining (residual) albuminuria on renal outcome (either the primary composite end point of RENAAL or ESRD). We also evaluated the contribution to renal protection of the antiproteinuric effect of losartan independently of changes in blood pressure. RESULTS: Baseline albuminuria is almost linearly related to renal outcome, and is the strongest predictor among all measured well-known baseline risk parameters. After adjusting for baseline risk markers of age, gender, race, weight, smoking, sitting diastolic blood pressure, sitting systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum creatinine, albuminuria, hemoglobin, and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3.0 g/g creatinine) showed a 5.2-fold (95% CI 4.3-6.3) increased risk for reaching a renal end point, and a 8.1-fold (95% CI 6.1-10.8) increased risk for progressing to ESRD, compared to the low albuminuria group (<1.5 g/g). The changes in albuminuria in the first 6 months of therapy are roughly linearly related to the degree of long-term renal protection: every 50% reduction in albuminuria in the first 6 months was associated with a reduction in risk of 36% for renal end point and 45% for ESRD during later follow-up. Albuminuria at month 6, designated residual albuminuria, showed a linear relationship with renal outcome, almost identical to the relationship between baseline albuminuria and renal risk. Losartan reduced albuminuria by 28% (95% CI -25% to -36%), while placebo increased albuminuria by 4% (95% CI +8% to -1%) in the first 6 months of therapy. The specific (beyond blood pressure lowering) renoprotective effect of the Ang II antagonist, losartan, in this study is for the major part explained by its antialbuminuric effect (approximately 100% for the renal end point, and 50% for ESRD end point). CONCLUSION: Albuminuria is the predominant renal risk marker in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy on conventional treatment; the higher the albuminuria, the greater the renal risk. Reduction in albuminuria is associated with a proportional effect on renal protection, the greater the reduction the greater the renal protection. The residual albuminuria on therapy (month 6) is as strong a marker of renal outcome as is baseline albuminuria. The antiproteinuric effect of losartan explains a major component of its specific renoprotective effect. In conclusion, albuminuria should be considered a risk marker for progressive loss of renal function in type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, as well as a target for therapy. Reduction of residual albuminuria to the lowest achievable level should be viewed as a goal for future renoprotective treatments.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Nefropatías Diabéticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Proteinuria/prevención & control , Anciano , Albuminuria/fisiopatología , Albuminuria/prevención & control , Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapéutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/fisiopatología , Nefropatías Diabéticas/fisiopatología , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Losartán/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proteinuria/fisiopatología , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/efectos de los fármacos , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/fisiología , Factores de Riesgo
7.
Clin Trials ; 1(2): 162-9, 2004.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16281888

RESUMEN

As clinical trials have emerged as the major research method for evaluating new interventions, the process for monitoring intervention safety and benefit has also evolved. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has become the standard approach to implement this responsibility for many Phase III trials. Recent draft guidelines on the operation of DMCs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised issues that need further clarification or discussion, especially for industry sponsored trials. These include, the time when DMCs are needed, the role of the independent statistician to support the DMC, and sponsor participation at DMC meetings. This paper provides an overview of these issues, based on the discussions at the January, 2003 workshop sponsored by Duke Clinical Research Institute.


Asunto(s)
Comités de Monitoreo de Datos de Ensayos Clínicos/normas , United States Food and Drug Administration , Comités de Monitoreo de Datos de Ensayos Clínicos/organización & administración , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA