Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule Inhibitor of Lipoprotein(a) Formation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is associated with atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis. Lp(a) forms by bonding between apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]) and apo B100. Muvalaplin is an orally administered small molecule that inhibits Lp(a) formation by blocking the apo(a)-apo B100 interaction while avoiding interaction with a homologous protein, plasminogen. Objective: To determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of muvalaplin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 1 randomized, double-blind, parallel-design study enrolled 114 participants (55 assigned to a single-ascending dose; 59 assigned to a multiple-ascending dose group) at 1 site in the Netherlands. Interventions: The single ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of a single dose of muvalaplin ranging from 1 mg to 800 mg or placebo taken by healthy participants with any Lp(a) level. The multiple ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of taking daily doses of muvalaplin (30 mg to 800 mg) or placebo for 14 days in patients with Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL or higher. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Results: Among 114 randomized (55 in the single ascending dose group: mean [SD] age, 29 [10] years, 35 females [64%], 2 American Indian or Alaska Native [4%], 50 White [91%], 3 multiracial [5%]; 59 in the multiple ascending dose group: mean [SD] age 32 [15] years; 34 females [58%]; 3 American Indian or Alaska Native [5%], 6 Black [10%], 47 White [80%], 3 multiracial [5%]), 105 completed the trial. Muvalaplin was not associated with tolerability concerns or clinically significant adverse effects. Oral doses of 30 mg to 800 mg for 14 days resulted in increasing muvalaplin plasma concentrations and half-life ranging from 70 to 414 hours. Muvalaplin lowered Lp(a) plasma levels within 24 hours after the first dose, with further Lp(a) reduction on repeated dosing. Maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, resulting in Lp(a) plasma levels less than 50 mg/dL in 93% of participants, with similar effects at daily doses of 100 mg or more. No clinically significant changes in plasminogen levels or activity were observed. Conclusion: Muvalaplin, a selective small molecule inhibitor of Lp(a) formation, was not associated with tolerability concerns and lowered Lp(a) levels up to 65% following daily administration for 14 days. Longer and larger trials will be required to further evaluate safety, tolerability, and effect of muvalaplin on Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04472676.

Issues Impacting Adverse Event Frequency and Severity: Differences Between Randomized Phase 2 and Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Lasmiditan.

OBJECTIVE: We explore factors that may have contributed to differences in treatment-emergent adverse events in the phase 2 and phase 3 lasmiditan clinical trials. BACKGROUND: Phase 2 and phase 3 trials showed that the centrally penetrant 5-HT1F agonist, lasmiditan, was effective; higher frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) were seen in phase 2. METHODS: This work represents a hybrid of a review of primary documents and study reports with additional post hoc analyses. Protocols, informed consents, data collection forms, and methodologies were reviewed. This information was supplemented by results from the clinical study reports and post hoc analyses of individual patient data from each trial. RESULTS: For lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg, in phase 2, the incidence of ≥1 AE was 72-86% (26% severe), while in phase 3 was 36-43% (2% severe). The most common AEs in all studies were CNS-related. The phase 2 consent form was more descriptive of AEs than phase 3. In phase 2, patients recorded AEs and severity in a paper diary that warned about drowsiness and dizziness. In phase 3, patients recorded in electronic diaries whether they experienced unusual feelings after dosing with lasmiditan that they had not felt with a migraine before, and were contacted to determine if an AE had occurred. In phase 2, the AE Schwindel was variably translated from German as "vertigo" or "dizziness," while phase 3 vertigo cases were queried to ensure there was a sensation of rotation or movement. History of recurrent dizziness and/or vertigo was exclusionary in phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: This work illustrates how informed consent wording, AE collection methods, translation, exclusion criteria, and other factors may be important determinants for reporting of the frequency and severity of AEs in clinical trials.

Effects of lasmiditan on simulated driving performance: Results of two randomized, blinded, crossover studies with placebo and active controls.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of lasmiditan, an oral, centrally-penetrant, selective serotonin 1F (5-HT1F ) receptor agonist developed for the acute treatment of migraine, on simulated driving. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers enrolled in two randomized, placebo and active comparator-controlled, crossover studies. Study 1 (N = 90) tested lasmiditan (50-, 100-, 200-mg), alprazolam (1-mg), and placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Study 2 (N = 68) tested lasmiditan (100-, 200-mg), diphenhydramine (50-mg, administered 2 hr pre-assessments), and placebo at 8, 12 and 24 hr post-dose. Driving performance was assessed using a validated driving simulator employing a 100 km driving scenario. Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of lane position control, was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Assay sensitivity was confirmed by increased SDLP for active comparators at 1.5- and 8-hr time points. Lasmiditan doses showed significant driving impairment versus placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Lasmiditan doses were non-inferior to placebo at 8 hr. Driving impairment was concentration-dependent at 1.5 hr but not at 8 hr. Common adverse events were central nervous system-related and mild-to-moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was associated with impaired simulated driving performance at 1.5 hr post-dose, but showed no clinically meaningful impairment at 8 hr post-dose.

Targeting the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway in anaemia of chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events. Hepcidin production, controlled by bone morphogenic protein 6 (BMP6), regulates iron homeostasis via interactions with the iron transporter, ferroportin. High hepcidin levels are thought to contribute to increased iron sequestration and subsequent anaemia in CKD patients. To investigate alternative therapies to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for CKD patients, monoclonal antibodies, LY3113593 and LY2928057, targeting BMP6 and ferroportin respectively, were tested in CKD patients. METHODS: Preclinical in vitro/vivo data and clinical data in healthy subjects and CKD patients were used to illustrate the translation of pharmacological properties of LY3113593 and LY2928057, highlighting the novelty of targeting these nodes within the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway. RESULTS: LY2928057 bound ferroportin and blocked interactions with hepcidin, allowing iron efflux, leading to increased serum iron and transferrin saturation levels and increased hepcidin in monkeys and humans. In CKD patients, LY2928057 led to slower haemoglobin decline and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). Serum iron increase was (mean [90% confidence interval]) 1.98 [1.46-2.68] and 1.36 [1.22-1.51] fold-relative to baseline following LY2928057 600 mg and LY311593 150 mg respectively in CKD patients. LY3113593 specifically blocked BMP6 binding to its receptor and produced increases in iron and transferrin saturation and decreases in hepcidin preclinically and clinically. In CKD patients, LY3113593 produced an increase in haemoglobin and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). CONCLUSION: LY3113593 and LY2928057 pharmacological effects (serum iron and ferritin) were translated from preclinical-to-clinical development. Such interventions may lead to new CKD anaemia treatments.

Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and CV events associated with migraine, patients with migraine can also present with a number of CV risk factors (CVRFs). Existing treatment options can be limited due to contraindications, increased burden associated with monitoring, or patient avoidance of side effects. Safe and effective migraine treatment options are needed for patients with migraine and a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease or with increased risk for CV events. This analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral lasmiditan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist, in acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients with CVRFs. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults treating a single migraine attack with lasmiditan 50, 100, or 200 mg. Both studies included patients with CVRFs, and SPARTAN allowed patients with coronary artery disease, clinically significant arrhythmia, or uncontrolled hypertension. Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in subgroups of patients with differing levels of CVRFs are reported. For efficacy analyses, logistic regression was used to assess treatment-by-subgroup interactions. For safety analyses, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association evaluated treatment comparisons; Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio assessed significant treatment effects. RESULTS: In this pooled analysis, a total of 4439 patients received ≥1 dose of study drug. A total of 3500 patients (78.8%) had ≥1 CVRF, and 1833 patients (41.3%) had ≥2 CVRFs at baseline. Both trials met the primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h. The presence of CVRFs did not affect efficacy results. There was a low frequency of likely CV treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (lasmiditan, 30 [0.9%]; placebo, 5 [0.4%]). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely CV TEAEs in either the absence or presence of any CVRFs. The only likely CV TEAE seen across patients with ≥1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, or ≥ 4 CVRFs was palpitations. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed by the presence of CVRFs, there was no statistical difference in lasmiditan efficacy or the frequency of likely CV TEAEs. Despite the analysis being limited by a single-migraine-attack design, the lack of differences in efficacy and safety with increasing numbers of CVRFs indicates that lasmiditan might be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with CVRFs. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), registered 18 March 2015 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02605174 (SPARTAN), registered 11 November 2015.

Anti-TGF-ß1 Antibody Therapy in Patients with Diabetic Nephropathy.

TGF-ß has been implicated as a major pathogenic factor in diabetic nephropathy. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study assessed whether modulating TGF-ß1 activity with a TGF-ß1-specific, humanized, neutralizing monoclonal antibody (TGF-ß1 mAb) is safe and more effective than placebo in slowing renal function loss in patients with diabetic nephropathy on chronic stable renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment. We randomized 416 patients aged ≥25 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, a serum creatinine (SCr) level of 1.3-3.3 mg/dl for women and 1.5-3.5 mg/dl for men (or eGFR of 20-60 ml/min per 1.73 m2), and a 24-hour urine protein-to-creatinine ratio ≥800 mg/g to TGF-ß1 mAb (2-, 10-, or 50-mg monthly subcutaneous dosing for 12 months) or placebo. We assessed a change in SCr from baseline to 12 months as the primary efficacy variable. Although the Data Monitoring Committee did not identify safety issues, we terminated the trial 4 months early for futility on the basis of their recommendation. The placebo group had a mean±SD change in SCr from baseline to end of treatment of 0.33±0.67 mg/dl. Least squares mean percentage change in SCr from baseline to end of treatment did not differ between placebo (14%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 9.7% to 18.2%) and TGF-ß1 mAb treatments (20% [95% CI, 15.3% to 24.3%], 19% [95% CI, 14.2% to 23.0%], and 19% [95% CI, 14.0% to 23.3%] for 2-, 10-, and 50-mg doses, respectively). Thus, TGF-ß1 mAb added to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors did not slow progression of diabetic nephropathy.

Erratum: Erratum.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1177/11795484221119316.].

Efficacy and Safety of LY3127804, an Anti-Angiopoietin-2 Antibody, in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial in Patients Hospitalized with Pneumonia and Presumed or Confirmed COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are characterized by progressive respiratory failure and the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with high mortality rates for patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Levels of the vascular growth factor Angiopoietin 2 (Ang2) in plasma have been strongly correlated with increased ARDS risk in patients with pneumonia or sepsis. The intent of this study was to determine whether LY3127804, an anti-Ang2 monoclonal antibody, could reduce the need for mechanical ventilation among patients admitted to the hospital with pneumonia and presumed or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted to hospital with confirmed pneumonia, presumed or confirmed COVID-19, and infiltrates on chest imaging and/or oxygen saturation of ≤ 95% on room air were stratified by age group (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years), sex, and site and randomly assigned 1:1 within each stratum to receive either LY3127804 (20 mg/kg) or placebo on Day 1 and possibly on Day 15. The primary end point for this study was number of days in which a patient did not require a ventilator over the 28-day study period. RESULTS: Interim analysis assessed study futility after 95 randomized patients had 28-day data available and showed no benefit of LY3127804 in reducing the number of ventilator days over placebo. The study was subsequently terminated. CONCLUSION: LY3127804 treatment did not decrease the need for ventilator usage in patients hospitalized with pneumonia and presumed or confirmed COVID-19. ClinicalTrialsgov identifier: NCT04342897.

Abuse Potential of Lasmiditan: A Phase 1 Randomized, Placebo- and Alprazolam-Controlled Crossover Study.

Lasmiditan is a centrally penetrant, highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F (5HT1F ) agonist under development as a novel therapy for acute treatment of migraine. A phase 1 randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled crossover study assessed the abuse potential of lasmiditan in adult recreational polydrug users. Following a qualification phase, subjects were randomized into treatment sequences, each consisting of 5 study treatments: placebo, alprazolam 2 mg, lasmiditan 100, 200 (lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg are proposed therapeutic doses), and 400 mg (supratherapeutic). The abuse potential of lasmiditan was investigated and compared with alprazolam and with placebo using the maximal effect score (Emax ) of the Drug-Liking Visual Analog Scale as the primary end point. Lasmiditan was not similar to placebo in drug-liking scores at all doses tested, with a maximum difference observed with the lasmiditan 400-mg dose (upper 90% confidence limit on difference in least-squares [LS] means > 14 for all lasmiditan doses). Drug-liking scores for lasmiditan 400 mg were not significantly different from alprazolam (lower 90% confidence limit on difference in LS means < 5), but drug-liking scores at lower doses (100 and 200 mg) were significantly different from alprazolam. During the treatment phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased with increasing dose of lasmiditan; all TEAEs reported with lasmiditan treatment were mild. Subjective drug-liking effects for lasmiditan versus placebo and versus alprazolam, and the safety and tolerability profile of lasmiditan suggest that lasmiditan has a low potential for abuse.

Lasmiditan is an effective acute treatment for migraine: A phase 3 randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Adult patients with migraine were randomized (1:1:1) to a double-blind dose of oral lasmiditan 200 mg, lasmiditan 100 mg, or placebo and were asked to treat their next migraine attack within 4 hours of onset. Over 48 hours after dosing, patients used an electronic diary to record headache pain and the presence of nausea, phonophobia, and photophobia, one of which was designated their most bothersome symptom (MBS). RESULTS: Of the 1,856 patients who treated an attack, 77.9% had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factors in addition to migraine. Compared with placebo, more patients dosed with lasmiditan 200 mg were free of headache pain at 2 hours after dosing (32.2% vs 15.3%; odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-3.6, p< 0.001), similar to those dosed with lasmiditan 100 mg (28.2%; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-3.0, p< 0.001). Furthermore, compared with those dosed with placebo, more patients dosed with lasmiditan 200 mg (40.7% vs 29.5%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.1, p< 0.001) and lasmiditan 100 mg (40.9%; OR 1.7, 95% CI, 1.3-2.2, p< 0.001) were free of their MBS at 2 hours after dosing. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan dosed at 200 and 100 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of acute migraine among patients with a high level of cardiovascular risk factors. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02439320. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for adult patients with migraine, lasmiditan increases the proportion of subjects who are headache pain free at 2 hours after treating a migraine attack.

Comparison of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on pharmacotherapy with conventional antipsychotics has suggested that patients with affective disorders have higher rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than patients with schizophrenia. It is not known whether this differential vulnerability holds true for treatment with atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine. The present analysis retrospectively examined olanzapine clinical trial data for incidence of treatment-emergent EPS in patients with either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: Study participants were 4417 patients meeting DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria for either schizophrenia or bipolar mania participating in olanzapine clinical trials through July 31, 2001. Data were pooled across haloperidol-controlled trials and separately across placebo-controlled trials. Measures of EPS included rates of treatment-emergent EPS adverse event by type (i.e., dystonic, parkinsonian, or residual), Simpson-Angus Scale score mean change, rates of treatment-emergent parkinsonism, and rates of anticholinergic use. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, haloperidol-treated patients with bipolar disorder appeared to be more vulnerable to the development of EPS than those with schizophrenia. However, olanzapine-treated patients with bipolar disorder were no more likely to develop EPS than those with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Results support previous research regarding conventional antipsychotics and suggest that olanzapine therapy does not increase the risk of EPS for patients with bipolar disorder.

Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of olanzapine were compared with those of ziprasidone. METHOD: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week study of patients with schizophrenia. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 10-20 mg/day of olanzapine or 80-160 mg/day of ziprasidone. The primary efficacy measure was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Secondary efficacy and safety measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale subscales as well as mood, quality of life, and extrapyramidal symptom scales. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events and measuring vital signs and weight. RESULTS: The study was completed by significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (165 of 277, 59.6%) than ziprasidone-treated patients (115 of 271, 42.4%). At 28 weeks, the olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly more improvement than the ziprasidone-treated patients on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale overall scale and all subscales and on the Clinical Global Impression ratings of severity of illness and improvement. The responder rate was higher for olanzapine than for ziprasidone. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly different between groups in change-to-endpoint analyses, but results favored olanzapine on baseline-to-maximum changes. Weight change was significantly greater with olanzapine (mean=3.06 kg, SD=6.87) than with ziprasidone (mean=-1.12 kg, SD=4.70). Fasting lipid profiles were significantly superior in the ziprasidone group; there was no significant difference in fasting glucose level. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine treatment resulted in significantly greater psychopathology improvement and higher response and completion rates than ziprasidone treatment, while ziprasidone was superior for weight change and lipid profile.

An integrated analysis of acute treatment-emergent extrapyramidal syndrome in patients with schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials: comparisons with placebo, haloperidol, risperidone, or clozapine.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and severity of extrapyramidal syndrome (EPS) were evaluated in patients with DSM-III or DSM-IV schizophrenia in the acute phase (- 8 weeks) of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials from the integrated olanzapine clinical trial database. METHOD: This retrospective analysis included 23 clinical trials and 4611 patients from November 11, 1991, through July 31, 2001. Incidences of dystonic, parkinsonian, and akathisia events were compared using treatment-emergent adverse-event data. Categorical analyses of Simpson-Angus Scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) scores, use of anticholinergic medications, and baseline-to-endpoint changes in Simpson-Angus Scale and BAS scores were compared. RESULTS: A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients experienced dystonic events than did haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.047). A significantly greater percentage of haloperidol-treated patients experienced parkinsonian (p <.001) and akathisia (p <.001) events than did olanzapine-treated patients. Categorical analysis of Simpson-Angus Scale scores showed significantly more haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.004) developed parkinsonism than did olanzapine-treated patients. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater reductions in Simpson-Angus Scale scores than did haloperidol- (p <.001), risperidone- (p <.001), or clozapine-treated (p =.032) patients. Categorical analysis of BAS scores showed significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced treatment-emergent akathisia versus olanzapine-treated patients (p <.001). Significantly greater reductions in BAS scores were experienced during olanzapine treatment versus placebo (p =.007), haloperidol (p <.001), and risperidone (p =.004) treatments. A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients received anticholinergic medications compared with that of haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.018). Compared with that in olanzapine-treated patients, the duration of anticholinergic cotreatment was significantly longer among haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.040) and significantly shorter among clozapine-treated patients (p =.021). CONCLUSION: This analysis of available data from olanzapine clinical trials lends additional support to olanzapine's favorable EPS profile.

The effect of the oral PKC ß inhibitor ruboxistaurin on vision loss in two phase 3 studies.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of ruboxistaurin (RBX) on vision loss through a prospectively defined combined analysis of two phase 3 trials (MBDL and MBCU). METHODS: Patients in both of these 3-year randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked trials had best-corrected Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity (VA) ≥ 75 letters (∼20/32 Snellen), ETDRS retinopathy level 20 to 47D (MBDL) or 35B to 53E (MBCU), and no prior panretinal or focal photocoagulation in at least one eye at baseline. Patients received oral placebo (N = 508 total from both studies) or RBX 32 mg/d (N = 520 total). Best-corrected ETDRS VA was measured at 6-month intervals for 3 years (MBDL) or for 18 to 48 months (MBCU). Sustained moderate visual loss (SMVL) was defined as a 15-letter or more reduction from baseline in VA sustained for a patient's last 6 months of study participation. RESULTS: In the combined studies (N = 1028 total), SMVL occurred in 4.4% of placebo- versus 2.3% of RBX-treated patients (P = 0.069). In patients with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (N = 825 total), there was less SMVL in the RBX group (4.4% placebo versus 2.1% RBX, P = 0.045). Other VA-related measures (mean VA, contrast sensitivity, Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 [VFQ-25]) either trended toward a benefit for RBX or were also statistically significant in favor of RBX. In contrast, diabetic macular edema (DME) morphology-related measures (occurrence of significant center of macula involvement, optical coherence tomography [OCT]-determined center of macula thickness, application of focal photocoagulation) did not show a consistent trend in favor of or against RBX. CONCLUSIONS: SMVL data in a prospectively defined combined analysis from these two phase 3 trials suggest a magnitude of effect of RBX on vision loss similar to that seen in two prior studies (approximately 50% reduction above standard care). However, event rates were low and statistical significance was not achieved. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00133952, NCT00090519.).

Clinical safety of the selective PKC-beta inhibitor, ruboxistaurin.

The aim of this manuscript is to report the safety profile of patients treated with ruboxistaurin mesylate (RBX; LY333531), a selective protein kinase C-beta (PKC-beta) inhibitor, for up to 4 years. Data from patients with diabetes (1396 RBX 32 mg/day; 1408 placebo) were combined from 11 placebo-controlled, double-masked studies. The proportion of patients who reported one or more serious adverse events was greater in the placebo group than in the RBX-treated group (23.2 versus 20.8%, respectively). There were 51 deaths (21 RBX; 30 placebo) reported in this patient cohort; none of the deaths was attributed to study drug by the investigators. Common adverse drug reactions (> or = 1/100 - < 1/10 patients) that were reported in the RBX-treated patients were dyspepsia and increased blood creatine phosphokinase. In controlled, randomised clinical trials, RBX had an adverse event profile comparable to placebo, and was well tolerated.