Macitentan for the treatment of inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (MERIT-1): results from the multicentre, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Macitentan is beneficial for long-term treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The microvasculopathy of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) and pulmonary arterial hypertension are similar. METHODS: The phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled MERIT-1 trial assessed macitentan in 80 patients with CTEPH adjudicated as inoperable. Patients identified as WHO functional class II-IV with a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of at least 400 dyn·s/cm5 and a walk distance of 150-450 m in 6 min were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice/web response system, to receive oral macitentan (10 mg once a day) or placebo. Treatment with phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors and oral or inhaled prostanoids was permitted for WHO functional class III/IV patients. The primary endpoint was resting PVR at week 16, expressed as percentage of PVR measured at baseline. Analyses were done in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment; safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02021292. FINDINGS: Between April 3, 2014, and March 17, 2016, we screened 186 patients for eligibility at 48 hospitals across 20 countries. Of these, 80 patients in 36 hospitals were randomly assigned to treatment (40 patients to macitentan, 40 patients to placebo). At week 16, geometric mean PVR decreased to 71·5% of baseline in the macitentan group and to 87·6% in the placebo group (geometric means ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·70-0·95, p=0·0098). The most common adverse events in the macitentan group were peripheral oedema (9 [23%] of 40 patients) and decreased haemoglobin (6 [15%]). INTERPRETATION: In MERIT-1, macitentan significantly improved PVR in patients with inoperable CTEPH and was well tolerated. FUNDING: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Psychometric validation of the Hand Disability in Systemic Sclerosis-Digital Ulcers (HDISS-DU®) patient-reported outcome instrument.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a patient-reported outcome measure, in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration guidance, to capture the impact of systemic sclerosis-related digital ulcers (SSc-DUs) on hand function. Psychometric analyses were conducted to evaluate and document the measurement properties of the resulting instrument-the Hand Disability in Systemic Sclerosis-Digital Ulcers (HDISS-DU®). METHODS: The HDISS-DU was developed through a series of confirmatory, qualitative concept-elicitation interviews (N = 36) to provide supportive evidence that the instrument captures all relevant issues and functional limitations relating to SSc-DUs in this patient population. Psychometric analyses used blinded data from two randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials in patients with SSc-DUs (N = 517). The analyses included assessment of reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and thresholds for meaningful change. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews confirmed that the HDISS-DU had good content coverage and patients understood the HDISS-DU instructions, items and response scale. The HDISS-DU demonstrated excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability, with satisfactory construct validity. Overall, the HDISS-DU was highly responsive to change in digital ulcer severity: the no-change group (for other criterion measures) had mean differences and effect sizes close to 0, while mean differences were mostly negative (indicating improvement) for the improvement groups (for other criterion measures) and vice versa. The preliminary threshold for meaningful change was a 0.50 difference in HDISS-DU score. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from two large studies of SSc-DU patients, these psychometric analyses support the reliability, validity, discriminating ability and responsiveness to change of the HDISS-DU for evaluating treatment outcomes in future clinical studies and clinical practice.

Evaluation of Macitentan in Patients With Eisenmenger Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Eisenmenger syndrome describes congenital heart disease-associated severe pulmonary hypertension accompanied by right-to-left shunting. The multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 16-week, phase III MAESTRO study (Macitentan in Eisenmenger Syndrome to Restore Exercise Capacity) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the endothelin receptor antagonist macitentan in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome. METHODS: Patients with Eisenmenger syndrome aged ≥12 years and in World Health Organization functional class II-III were randomized 1:1 to placebo or macitentan 10 mg once daily for 16 weeks. Patients with complex cardiac defects, Down syndrome and background PAH therapy were eligible. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 16 in 6-minute walk distance. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 16 in World Health Organization functional class. Exploratory end points included NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) at end of treatment expressed as a percentage of baseline. In a hemodynamic substudy, exploratory end points included pulmonary vascular resistance index (PVRi) at week 16 as a percentage of baseline. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty six patients (macitentan n=114; placebo n=112) were randomized. At baseline, 60% of patients were in World Health Organization functional class II and 27% were receiving phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors. At week 16, the mean change from baseline in 6-minute walk distance was 18.3 m and 19.7 m in the macitentan and placebo groups (least-squares mean difference, -4.7 m; 95% confidence limit (CL), -22.8, 13.5; P=0.612). World Health Organization functional class improved from baseline to week 16 in 8.8% and 14.3% of patients in the macitentan and placebo groups (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CL, 0.23, 1.24). NT-proBNP levels decreased with macitentan versus placebo (ratio of geometric means, 0.80; 95% CL, 0.68, 0.94). In the hemodynamic substudy (n=39 patients), macitentan decreased PVRi compared with placebo (ratio of geometric means, 0.87; 95% CL, 0.73, 1.03). The most common adverse events with macitentan versus placebo were headache (11.4 versus 4.5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (9.6 versus 6.3%); a hemoglobin decrease from baseline of ≥2 g/dL occurred in 36.0% versus 8.9% of patients. Five patients (3 macitentan; 2 placebo) prematurely discontinued treatment and 1 patient died (macitentan group). CONCLUSIONS: Macitentan did not show superiority over placebo on the primary end point of change from baseline to week 16 in exercise capacity in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01743001.

Macitentan in pulmonary hypertension due to left ventricular dysfunction.

The MELODY-1 study evaluated macitentan for pulmonary hypertension because of left heart disease (PH-LHD) in patients with combined post- and pre-capillary PH.63 patients with PH-LHD and diastolic pressure gradient ≥7 mmHg and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >3WU were randomised to macitentan 10 mg (n=31) or placebo (n=32) for 12 weeks. The main end-point assessed a composite of significant fluid retention (weight gain ≥5% or ≥5 kg because of fluid overload or parenteral diuretic administration) or worsening in New York Heart Association functional class from baseline to end of treatment. Exploratory end-points included changes in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and haemodynamics at week 12.Seven macitentan-treated and four placebo-treated patients experienced significant fluid retention/worsening functional class; treatment difference, 10.08% (95% CI -15.07-33.26; p=0.34). The difference, driven by the fluid retention component, was apparent within the first month. At week 12, versus placebo, the macitentan group showed no change in PVR, mean right atrial pressure or pulmonary arterial wedge pressure; a non-significant increase in cardiac index (treatment effect 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-0.7) L·min-1·m-2) and decrease in NT-proBNP (0.77 (0.55-1.08)) was observed. Adverse events and serious adverse events were numerically more frequent with macitentan versus placebo.Macitentan-treated patients were quantitatively more likely to experience significant fluid retention versus placebo. Macitentan resulted in no significant changes in any exploratory end-points.

Macitentan for the treatment of inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (MERIT-1): results from the multicentre, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Macitentan is beneficial for long-term treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The microvasculopathy of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) and pulmonary arterial hypertension are similar. METHODS: The phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled MERIT-1 trial assessed macitentan in 80 patients with CTEPH adjudicated as inoperable. Patients identified as WHO functional class II-IV with a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of at least 400 dyn·s/cm5 and a walk distance of 150-450 m in 6 min were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice/web response system, to receive oral macitentan (10 mg once a day) or placebo. Treatment with phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors and oral or inhaled prostanoids was permitted for WHO functional class III/IV patients. The primary endpoint was resting PVR at week 16, expressed as percentage of PVR measured at baseline. Analyses were done in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment; safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02021292. FINDINGS: Between April 3, 2014, and March 17, 2016, we screened 186 patients for eligibility at 48 hospitals across 20 countries. Of these, 80 patients in 36 hospitals were randomly assigned to treatment (40 patients to macitentan, 40 patients to placebo). At week 16, geometric mean PVR decreased to 73·0% of baseline in the macitentan group and to 87·2% in the placebo group (geometric means ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99, p=0·041). The most common adverse events in the macitentan group were peripheral oedema (9 [23%] of 40 patients) and decreased haemoglobin (6 [15%]). INTERPRETATION: In MERIT-1, macitentan significantly improved PVR in patients with inoperable CTEPH and was well tolerated. FUNDING: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Effect of Macitentan on the Development of New Ischemic Digital Ulcers in Patients With Systemic Sclerosis: DUAL-1 and DUAL-2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Digital ulcers in patients with systemic sclerosis are associated with pain and poor quality of life. Endothelin-1 promotes vasculopathy in systemic sclerosis after macitentan, an endothelin-1 blocker. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of macitentan in reducing the number of new digital ulcers in patients with systemic sclerosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (DUAL-1, DUAL-2) were conducted between January 2012 and February 2014. Participants were patients with systemic sclerosis and active digital ulcers at baseline. Target enrollment for each study was 285 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive oral doses of 3 mg of macitentan, 10 mg of macitentan, or placebo once daily and stratified according to number of digital ulcers at baseline (≤3 or >3). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome for each trial was the cumulative number of new digital ulcers from baseline to week 16. Treatment effect was expressed as the ratio between treatment groups. RESULTS: In DUAL-1, among 289 randomized patients (mean age 51.2 years; 85.8% women), 226 completed the study. The adjusted mean number of new digital ulcers per patient over 16 weeks was 0.94 in the 3-mg macitentan group (n = 95) and 1.08 in the 10-mg macitentan group (n = 97) compared with 0.85 in the placebo group (n = 97) (absolute difference, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.54] for 3 mg of macitentan vs placebo and 0.23 [-0.27 to 0.72] for 10 mg of macitentan vs placebo). Among 265 patients randomized in DUAL-2 (mean age 49.6 years; 81.9% women), 216 completed the study. In DUAL-2, the adjusted mean number of new digital ulcers was 1.44 in the 3-mg macitentan group (n = 88) and 1.46 in the 10-mg macitentan group (n = 88) compared with 1.21 in the placebo group (n = 89) (absolute difference, 0.23 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.82] for 3 mg of macitentan vs placebo and 0.25 [95% CI, -0.34 to 0.84] for 10 mg of macitentan vs placebo). Adverse events more frequently associated with macitentan than with placebo were headache, peripheral edema, skin ulcer, anemia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, and nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with systemic sclerosis and active ischemic digital ulcers, treatment with macitentan did not reduce new digital ulcers over 16 weeks. These results do not support the use of macitentan for the treatment of digital ulcers in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01474109, NCT01474122.

Cariprazine in the treatment of schizophrenia: a proof-of-concept trial.

This 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-dose (1.5-4.5 mg/day) and high-dose (6-12 mg/day) cariprazine in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia (NCT00404573). The primary efficacy measure was change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, analyzed using a last observation carried forward approach. Other efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (secondary) and PANSS subscales (additional). There were no significant differences between the two doses of cariprazine and placebo in PANSS total score change or any other efficacy parameter after multiplicity adjustment. However, low-dose cariprazine versus placebo showed significantly greater reductions in PANSS total (P=0.033) and PANSS negative (P=0.027) scores without multiplicity adjustment. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence≥5% and twice that in the placebo group in either cariprazine dose group) were akathisia, restlessness, tremor, back pain, and extrapyramidal disorder. In this study, the overall cariprazine treatment effect was not statistically significant, but patients treated with low-dose cariprazine showed significantly greater improvement in schizophrenia symptoms relative to placebo-treated patients. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated. Results of this study suggest that cariprazine may be effective in treating schizophrenia and future research is warranted.

Memantine efficacy and safety in patients with acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder: a pilot evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of memantine (20, 30, and 40 mg/d) in the acute treatment of adults with bipolar I disorder hospitalized for mania. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, pilot trial included adults with bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episode, with and without psychotic features). Patients were assigned to 21 days of treatment: cohort 1, 20 mg/d (range, 20-30 mg/d); cohort 2, 30 mg/d (range, 30-40 mg/d); cohort 3, 40 mg/d (range, 30-50 mg/d). Efficacy measures included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Mania Rating Scale (>or=50% reduction in total score from baseline). The change from baseline was also assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in patients with psychiatric symptoms, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component, Clinical Global Impression Severity and Improvement scores, and Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled; 33 patients received at least 1 dose of memantine and had at least 1 postbaseline assessment using YMRS. Greatest improvement occurred in cohort 1 where half of the patients responded to memantine based on YMRS and Mania Rating Scale. At day 21, a response was observed in all patient cohorts. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 19 patients (54.3%). The most frequently reported adverse events (>or=4 patients) included constipation, nausea, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: The response to memantine combined with its tolerability support conducting large-sized randomized controlled trials to investigate further the use of memantine monotherapy in the treatment of mania.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of memantine as adjunctive treatment in patients with schizophrenia.

Memantine, an uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate receptors of the N-methyl-D-aspartate type is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. A growing body of evidence supports a link between the glutamatergic neurotransmission and schizophrenia. The purpose of this study (MEM-MD-29) was to examine the efficacy and safety of memantine as an adjunctive treatment to atypical antipsychotics in patients with persistent residual psychopathology of schizophrenia. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, participants were assigned to receive 20 mg/day memantine (n=70) or placebo (n=68), in addition to continuing treatment with atypical antipsychotics, for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). Secondary measures were positive and negative PANSS scores, PANSS responders, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), and Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach. Safety was assessed by means of physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, recording of adverse events (AEs), and measures of extrapyramidal symptoms. At end point, total PANSS scores did not differ between the memantine and the placebo group (p=0.570, LOCF). A similar outcome was observed for all secondary measures. The frequency of serious AEs in the memantine vs placebo group was 8.7 vs 6.0%; treatment discontinuations because of AEs occurred in 11.6 and 3.0% of patients in these groups, respectively. Memantine showed no efficacy as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia patients with residual psychopathology and was associated with a higher incidence of AEs than placebo.