Phase IV Multicenter, Prospective, Open-Label Clinical Trial of Cenegermin (rhNGF) for Stage 1 Neurotrophic Keratopathy (DEFENDO).

INTRODUCTION: Cenegermin is approved for treatment of neurotrophic keratopathy (NK) and has been studied in patients with stage 2 or 3 NK. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of cenegermin in adults with stage 1 NK. METHODS: This was a phase IV, multicenter, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled trial. Adults with stage 1 NK (Mackie criteria) and decreased corneal sensitivity (≤ 4 cm) received 1 drop of cenegermin 20 mcg/ml in the affected eye(s) 6 times/day for 8 weeks with a 24-week follow-up. RESULTS: Of 37 patients, corneal epithelial healing was observed in 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.1-94.9%; P < 0.001) at week 8; 95.2% (95% CI 76.2-99.9%; P < 0.001) of those patients remained healed at the end of the 24-week follow-up (week 32). At week 8, 91.2% (95% CI 76.3-98.1%; P < 0.001) of patients experienced improved corneal sensitivity; this improvement was observed in 82.1% (95% CI 63.1-93.9%; P < 0.001) of patients at week 32. Mean best-corrected distance visual acuity change from baseline at week 8 was - 0.10 logMAR (standard deviation [SD], 0.15; 95% CI - 0.16 to - 0.05; P < 0.001) and at week 32 was - 0.05 logMAR (SD, 0.16; 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.01; P = 0.122). At weeks 8 and 32, 15.2% (95% CI 5.1-31.9%; P < 0.001) and 10.7% (95% CI 2.3-28.2%; P < 0.001) of patients, respectively, had a 15-letter gain from baseline. At least one adverse event (AE) was reported by 73.0% and 45.7% of patients during the treatment and follow-up periods, respectively. The most common treatment-related, treatment-emergent AEs were eye pain (37.8%), blurred vision (10.8%), and eyelid pain (8.1%); these were mostly mild or moderate and were only reported during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the potential use of cenegermin for treating patients with stage 1 NK, and future confirmatory studies would be beneficial to elaborate on these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DEFENDO; NCT04485546.

Efficacy and Safety of Reparixin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Polymorphonuclear cell influx into the interstitial and bronchoalveolar spaces is a cardinal feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), principally mediated by interleukin-8 (IL-8). We sought to determine whether reparixin, a novel IL-8 pathway inhibitor, could reduce disease progression in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were randomized 2:1 to receive oral reparixin 1200 mg three times daily or placebo for up to 21 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28, with key secondary endpoints being the proportion of patients free of respiratory failure at Day 60, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission by Day 28 and time to recovery by Day 28. RESULTS: Of 279 patients randomized, 182 received at least one dose of reparixin and 88 received placebo. The proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 was similar in the two groups {83.5% versus 80.7%; odds ratio 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 3.51]; p = 0.216}. There were no statistically significant differences in the key secondary endpoints, but a numerically higher proportion of patients in the reparixin group were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 60 (88.7% versus 84.6%; p = 0.195), fewer required ICU admissions by Day 28 (15.8% versus 21.7%; p = 0.168), and a higher proportion recovered by Day 28 compared with placebo (81.6% versus 74.9%; p = 0.167). Fewer patients experienced adverse events with reparixin than placebo (45.6% versus 54.5%), most mild or moderate intensity and not related to study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not meet the primary efficacy endpoints, yet reparixin showed a trend toward limiting disease progression as an add-on therapy in COVID-19 severe pneumonia and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04878055, EudraCT: 2020-005919-51.

Ketoprofen lysine salt has a better gastrointestinal and renal tolerability than ketoprofen acid: A comparative tolerability study in the Beagle dog.

Due to the widespread use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the incidence of NSAID-associated adverse events has increased exponentially over the past decades. Ketoprofen (ketoprofen acid, KA) is a widely used NSAID and, like with other NSAIDs, its use can be associated with adverse effects that especially involve the gastrointestinal tract and the kidney. The salification of KA with L-lysine has led to the synthesis of ketoprofen lysine salt (KLS), which is characterized by higher solubility and a more rapid gastrointestinal absorption compared to KA. Previous studies have reported that KLS has also an increased gastric tolerance in vitro, and this is due to the inhibition of lipid peroxidation and reactive oxygen species scavenging effects of L-lysine. Here, we report in vivo tolerability/toxicity studies that were conducted prior seeking KLS marketing authorization, in which we compared KLS and KA safety profile, focusing in particular on the evaluation of the gastrointestinal and renal tolerability of the drugs administered orally to dogs. Our results demonstrate that KLS has an increased in vivo gastrointestinal tolerability compared to KA and show, for the first time, that KLS has also increased in vivo renal tolerability compared to KA, thus supporting the concept that L-lysine may counteract NSAID-induced oxidative stress-mediated gastrointestinal and renal injury.

A Multicenter Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Reparixin in the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome are common complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 are associated with cytokine release syndrome. Binding of interleukin-8 (CXCL8/IL-8) to its chemokine receptors, CXCR1/2, may mediate this inflammatory process. The aim of this clinical trial was to determine if CXCR1/2 blockade with reparixin can improve clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The dose and safety of reparixin have been investigated in clinical trials of patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, randomized study in hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia from May 5, 2020 until November 27, 2020. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg reparixin orally three times daily or standard of care (SOC) for up to 21 days. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of clinical events: use of supplemental oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and/or use of rescue medication. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled between reparixin (n = 36) and SOC (n = 19). The rate of clinical events was statistically significantly lower in the reparixin group compared with the SOC group (16.7% [95% CI 6.4-32.8%] vs. 42.1% [95% CI 20.3-66.5%], P = 0.02). The sensitivity analysis based on the Cox regression model provided an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.33 with statistical significance lower than 0.05 (95% CI 0.11-0.99; P = 0.047). Reparixin treatment appeared to be well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe COVID-19, reparixin led to an improvement in clinical outcomes when compared with the SOC. A larger phase 3 clinical study is needed to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT identifier, 2020-001645-40; registered May 6, 2020 (retrospectively registered), and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04794803) on March 8, 2021.

A phase 2 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of raloxifene for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Background: Current available therapeutic options for Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) are primarily focused on treating hospitalized patients, and there is a lack of oral therapeutic options to treat mild to moderate outpatient COVID-19 and prevent clinical progression. Raloxifene was found as a promising molecule to treat COVID-19 due to its activity to modulate the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and act as an immunomodulator to decrease proinflammatory cytokines. Methods: This was a phase 2 multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of raloxifene in adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 between October 2020 to June 2021 in five centers located in Italy. This was a planned 2/3 adaptive study, but due to operational difficulties, the study was discontinued during the phase 2 study segment. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral placebo, raloxifene 60 mg, or raloxifene 120 mg by self-administration for a maximum of two weeks. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with undetectable SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swabs at day 7 and the proportion of patients who did not require supplemental oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation on day 14. Safety was assessed. The trial is registered (EudraCT 2021-002,476-39, and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05172050). Findings: A total of 68 participants were enrolled and randomized to placebo (n = 21), raloxifene 60 mg (n = 24), and raloxifene 120 mg (n = 23). The proportion of participants with undetectable SARS-CoV-2 after seven days of treatment with raloxifene 60 mg [36.8%, 7/19 vs. 0.0%, 0/14] and 120 mg [22.2%, 4/18 vs. 0.0%, 0/14] was better compared to placebo, [risk difference (RD) = 0·37 (95% C.I.:0·09-0·59)] and [RD = 0·22 (95% C.I.: -0·03-0·45)], respectively. There was no evidence of effect for requirement of supplemental oxygen and/or mechanical ventilation with effects for raloxifene 60 mg and raloxifene 120 mg over placebo, [RD = 0·09 (95% C.I.: -0·22-0·37)], and [RD = 0·03 (95% C.I.: -0·28-0·33)], respectively. Raloxifene was well tolerated at both doses, and there was no evidence of any difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events. Interpretation: Raloxifene showed evidence of effect in the primary virologic endpoint in the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19 patients shortening the time of viral shedding. The safety profile was consistent with that reported for other indications. Raloxifene may represent a promising pharmacological option to prevent or mitigate COVID-19 disease progression. Funding: The study was funded by Dompé Farmaceutici SpA and supported by the funds from the European Commission - Health and Consumers Directorate General, for the Action under the Emergency Support Instrument- Grant to support clinical testing of repurposed medicines to treat SARS-COV-2 patients (PPPA-ESI-CTRM-2020-SI2.837140), and by the COVID-2020-12,371,675 Ricerca finalizzata and line 1 Ricerca Corrente COVID both funded by Italian Ministry of Health.

Ladarixin, an inhibitor of the interleukin-8 receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2, in new-onset type 1 diabetes: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the ability of ladarixin (LDX, 400 mg twice-daily for three cycles of 14 days on/14 days off), an inhibitor of the CXCR1/2 chemokine receptors, to maintain C-peptide production in adult patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled study was conducted in 45 males and 31 females (aged 18-46 years) within 100 days of the first insulin administration. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide in response to a 2-hour mixed meal tolerance test (AUC[0-120 min] ) at week 13 ± 1. Secondary endpoints included C-peptide AUC(15-120 min) , HbA1c, daily insulin requirement, severe hypoglycaemic events (SHE), the proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% without SHE and maintaining a residual beta cell function. Follow-up assessments were scheduled at weeks 13 ± 1, 26 ± 2 and 52 ± 2. RESULTS: In total, 26/26 (100%, placebo) and 49/50 (98%, LDX) patients completed week 13. The mean change from baseline to week 13 in C-peptide AUC(0-120 min) was -0.144 ± 0.449 nmol/L with placebo and 0.003 ± .322 nmol/L with LDX. The difference was not significant (0.149 nmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.33; P = .122). At week 26, the proportion of patients with HbA1c less than 7.0% without SHE was transiently higher in the LDX group (81% vs. 54%, P = .024). Otherwise, no significant secondary endpoint differences were noted. Transient metabolic benefit was seen at week 26 in favour of the LDX group in the prespecified subpopulation with fasting C-peptide less than the median value at screening. CONCLUSIONS: In newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, short-term LDX treatment had no appreciable effect on preserving residual beta cell function.

Sutureless versus Stented Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized PERSIST-AVR Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Sutureless biological valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), characterized by the absence of anchoring sutures at the aortic annulus, are gaining popularity because of ease and reproducibility of implant, shorter operating times, and enhancement of minimally invasive approaches. The stentless configuration of the sutureless valve was designed to achieve optimal hemodynamic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PERSIST-AVR (PERceval Sutureless Implant versus STandard Aortic Valve Replacement) is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label, international, postmarket trial (NCT02673697). The primary objective of the trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of the Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK) sutureless bioprosthesis among patients undergoing SAVR in the presence of severe aortic stenosis to demonstrate the noninferiority of Perceval as compared with standard sutured stented bioprosthetic aortic valve as an isolated procedure or combined with coronary artery bypass grafting. Sample size will be determined adaptively through interim analyses performed by an Independent Statistical Unit till a maximum of 1,234 patients, enrolled at ∼60 sites in countries where the device is commercially available. Patients will be followed up for 5 years after implant. The primary end point is the number of patients free from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular-related events at 1 year. Additional secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 5 years. DISCUSSION: PERSIST-AVR is the first prospective, randomized study comparing in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes in a robust population of patients undergoing SAVR with either the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis or a conventional sutured stented bioprosthesis up to 5 years.

The differential role of L1 in ovarian carcinoma and normal ovarian surface epithelium.

Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) arises from the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE), a monolayer of poorly differentiated epithelial cells that lines the ovary. The molecular mechanisms underlying EOC invasion into the surrounding stroma and dissemination to the peritoneum and to retroperitoneal lymph nodes are still unclear. Here, we analyzed the expression and the functional role of the cell adhesion molecule L1 during EOC development. In patient-derived samples, L1 was expressed both in OSE and in a subset of EOC, in the latter being mostly restricted to the invasive areas of the tumors. The expression of L1 correlated significantly with poor outcome and with unfavorable clinicopathologic features of the disease. The peculiar expression pattern of L1 in normal OSE and invasive EOC raised the possibility that this adhesion molecule serves a different function in nontransformed versus neoplastic ovarian epithelial cells. Indeed, we showed that in OSE cells L1 supports cell-cell adhesion and enhances apoptosis, whereas it has no effect on cell proliferation and invasion. In contrast, L1 inhibits cell-cell adhesion and apoptosis in ovarian carcinoma cells, where it promotes malignancy-related properties, such as cell proliferation, Erk1/2-dependent and phosphoinositide 3-kinase-dependent invasion, and transendothelial migration. Interestingly, a crosstalk with the fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling is implicated in the promalignant function of L1 in tumor cells. Our findings point to L1 as an EOC biomarker correlating with poor prognosis, and highlight a switch in L1 function associated to the neoplastic transformation of ovarian epithelial cells, thus implicating L1 as a potential therapeutic target.