Comparison of the efficacy and safety of LBAL, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis inadequately responding to methotrexate: a 52-week phase III randomised study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the similarities between LBAL (adalimumab biosimilar candidate) and the adalimumab reference product (ADL) in terms of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. METHODS: This phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 56-week study was conducted in Japan and Korea. During the first 24 weeks, patients subcutaneously received 40 mg of LBAL or ADL every two weeks (LBAL and ADL groups). During the subsequent 28 weeks, the LBAL group patients and half of the ADL group patients received LBAL (L-L and A-L arms). The remaining ADL group patients continued to receive ADL (A-A arm). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in disease activity score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at Week 24. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, adverse events (AEs), and anti-drug antibody (ADA) were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 383 patients were randomised. The least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR at Week 24 were -2.45 and -2.53 in the LBAL (n=191) and ADL (n=190) groups, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.139, 0.304) of the difference (0.08) was within the pre-specified equivalence margin (-0.6, 0.6). Up to Week 52, the decreases in DAS28-ESR were maintained in all three arms. No notable differences in ACR20/50/70 were observed. The AE and ADA incidences were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: LBAL was equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety, including immunogenicity, to ADL. Switching from ADL to LBAL did not impact on efficacy and safety.

A drug-drug interaction study of a novel, selective urate reabsorption inhibitor dotinurad and the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug oxaprozin in healthy adult males.

BACKGROUND: Dotinurad is a novel, selective urate reabsorption inhibitor, which reduces serum uric acid levels by inhibiting the urate transporter 1. The results of nonclinical studies indicated the possibility that the concomitant use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug oxaprozin affects the pharmacokinetics of dotinurad. We evaluated drug-drug interactions with respect to the pharmacokinetics and safety of dotinurad when co-administered with oxaprozin. METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period, add-on study in healthy adult males. For a single dose of 4 mg of dotinurad with and without oxaprozin, we compared its pharmacokinetic parameters and evaluated safety. RESULTS: This study enrolled 12 subjects, 11 of whom completed the study. The geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval [CI]) of the urinary excretion rate of glucuronate conjugates of dotinurad after co-administration with oxaprozin compared to administration of dotinurad alone was 0.657 (0.624-0.692), while the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of the maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf) were 0.982 (0.945-1.021) and 1.165 (1.114-1.219), respectively. During the study, two adverse events occurred after administration of dotinurad alone and one occurred after administration of oxaprozin alone. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with administration of dotinurad alone, co-administration with oxaprozin was associated with a 34.3% decrease in the urinary excretion rate of the glucuronate conjugates of dotinurad, and a 16.5% increase in AUC0-inf of dotinurad. However, no clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions were observed. Administration of dotinurad alone was similar safety to co-administration with oxaprozin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03350386.

Dotinurad: a clinical pharmacokinetic study of a novel, selective urate reabsorption inhibitor in subjects with hepatic impairment.

BACKGROUND: Dotinurad is a novel, selective urate reabsorption inhibitor, which reduces serum uric acid levels by inhibiting the urate transporter 1 (URAT1). We compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of dotinurad in subjects with hepatic impairment and normal hepatic function. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, single dose study. A total of 24 subjects were divided into four groups: the normal hepatic function group and the mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment groups. The primary endpoints were changes in plasma dotinurad levels and PK parameters. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratio of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) [two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI)] of dotinurad in in the mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment groups relative to that in the normal hepatic function group was 0.840 (0.674-1.047), 0.798 (0.653-0.976), and 0.747 (0.570-0.979), respectively, showing a lower Cmax in the moderate and severe hepatic impairment groups. Following adjustment for body weight, only the moderate hepatic impairment group had a lower Cmax than the normal hepatic function group. No meaningful differences in other PK parameters were observed between the groups. Regarding the PD of dotinurad, the changes in serum uric acid levels after dosing were similar in all groups. As for safety, no noteworthy concerns were raised in relation to any group. CONCLUSION: The study revealed no clinically meaningful influence of hepatic impairment on the PK, PD, or safety of dotinurad. These findings indicate possibility that dotinurad can be used without dose adjustment in patients with hepatic impairment.

Comparison of efficacy of once daily multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with other 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study compared the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day and 4.8 g/day with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 251 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-2.4), 4.8 g/day once daily (Multimatrix-4.8), or controlled-release (time-dependent) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times daily (Time-2.25) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ulcerative colitis-disease activity index (UC-DAI) score. RESULTS: The mean change in the UC-DAI score and standard deviation in the per protocol set was -1.9±2.5 for Multimatrix-2.4 and -2.4±2.8 for Time-2.25. The difference between Multimatrix-2.4 and Time-2.25 was 0.3 (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1.1), thus non-inferiority was not demonstrated based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (1.0). In the full analysis set, the difference between Multimatrix-4.8 and Time-2.25 was -1.2 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.5), and the mean change in UC-DAI score in the FAS was -3.3 (two-sided 95% CI, -3.9 to -2.8) for Multimatrix-4.8 and -1.9 (two-sided 95% CI, -2.5 to -1.3) for Multimatrix-2.4, indicating that Multimatrix-4.8 was more effective than Time-2.25 and Multimatrix-2.4. There was no difference among the treatment groups in terms of safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day was comparable to controlled release mesalazine 2.25 g/day, although non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Importantly, this was the first study to indicate that multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was more effective than 2.4g/day with no associated safety concerns.

Phase III, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study to evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 and etanercept reference product in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis inadequately responding to methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 (etanercept biosimilar) and the etanercept reference product (ETN-RP) in terms of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. METHODS: This phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 54-week study was conducted in Japan and Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24. American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate, adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics and development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 374 patients were randomised to LBEC0101 (n=187) or ETN-RP (n=187). The least squares mean changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR at week 24 in the per-protocol set were -3.01 (95% CI -3.198 to -2.820) in the LBEC0101 group and -2.86 (95% CI -3.051 to -2.667) in the ETN-RP group. The estimated between-group difference was -0.15 and its 95% CI was -0.377 to 0.078, which was within the prespecified equivalence margin of -0.6 to 0.6. ACR20 response rates at week 24 were similar between the groups (LBEC0101 93.3% vs ETN-RP 86.7%). The incidence of AEs up to week 54 was comparable between the groups (LBEC0101 92.0% vs ETN-RP 92.5%), although fewer patients in the LBEC0101 group (1.6%) than the ETN-RP group (9.6%) developed ADAs. CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of LBEC0101 was equivalent to that of ETN-RP. LBEC0101 was well tolerated and had a comparable safety profile to ETN-RP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02357069.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of dienogest in the treatment of painful symptoms in patients with adenomyosis: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dienogest (DNG), a progestational 19-norsteroid, in patients with symptomatic adenomyosis. DESIGN: Phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Clinical study sites in Japan. PATIENT(S): Sixty-seven patients with adenomyosis. INTERVENTION(S): Patients were randomly assigned to receive DNG (2 mg/d, orally) or placebo for 16 weeks. In cases of complicated anemia, patients were treated for anemia before randomization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary end point was the change from baseline to after treatment pain score, using zero- to three-point verbal rating scales that defined pain severity according to limited ability to work and need for analgesics. The visual analogue scale was used as another pain parameter. RESULT(S): Decreases from baseline in the pain score and the visual analogue scale at the end of treatment were significantly more in the DNG group than in the placebo group (P<.001). During the treatment period, almost all of the patients treated with DNG experienced irregular uterine bleeding and one patient had mild anemia. No severe cases of anemia were observed. CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that DNG is effective and well tolerated in the treatment for painful symptoms associated with adenomyosis not complicated by severe uterine enlargement or severe anemia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: JapicCTI-142642(en).

Long-term use of dienogest in the treatment of painful symptoms in adenomyosis.

AIM: We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of dienogest (DNG), a progestational 19-norsteroid, administered for 52 weeks in patients with symptomatic adenomyosis. METHODS: A total of 130 patients with adenomyosis received 2 mg of DNG orally each day for 52 weeks. In cases of complicated anemia, patients were treated for anemia prior to receiving the medication. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were evaluated. The patients' pain symptoms (dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain from adenomyosis) were assessed using a pain-scoring tool. This was a verbal rating scale comprising a 0-3-point pain-severity score measuring disability to work, and an analgesics-usage score measuring need for analgesics. RESULTS: The most common adverse drug reactions included metrorrhagia (96.9%) and hot flush (7.7%). However, in most cases, metrorrhagia was tolerable and no clinically significant changes were observed concerning the incidence or severity of reactions during the 52-week treatment period. There were no serious adverse events. Both the pain-severity score and analgesics-usage score decreased after the start of treatment with DNG. The mean ± standard deviation changes from baseline for the pain score were -3.4 ± 1.8 at 24 weeks and -3.8 ± 1.5 at 52 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: The long-term use of DNG was well-tolerated and effective in patients with symptomatic adenomyosis.

Comparison of efficacies of once-daily dose multimatrix mesalazine and multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study compared the efficacy of once-daily administration of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day with multiple-dose mesalazine for the maintenance of remission. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 203 patients with ulcerative colitis in remission received multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily or time-dependent (controlled-release) mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients without rectal bleeding. RESULTS: The proportion of patients without rectal bleeding during the 48-week treatment period in the per protocol set was 84.8% (84/99) in the multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day group and 78.0% (78/100) in the controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day group. The difference between the 2 treatment groups was 6.8% (two-sided 95% confidence interval, -3.9% to 17.6%). The noninferiority margin of -10% was met in the comparison of multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily with controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day. Multimatrix mesalazine 2.4 g/day once-daily demonstrated consistent efficacy in all subgroups. There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups with regard to safety. CONCLUSIONS: A once-daily dose of 2 multimatrix mesalazine tablets (2.4 g) was not inferior to controlled-release mesalazine 2.25 g/day 3 times-daily in maintaining absence of rectal bleeding in ulcerative colitis.

Comparison of efficacy of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day once-daily with other high-dose mesalazine in active ulcerative colitis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of high-dose multimatrix mesalazine once-daily (QD) compared to another form of high-dose mesalazine. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 280 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC) received multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day QD or pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day three times daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the UC-Disease Activity Index (UC-DAI) at the end of the treatment period. RESULTS: The change in the UC-DAI (mean±standard deviation) in the per-protocol set was -2.6±2.47 in the multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day group (n=134) and -1.8±2.64 in the pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day group (n=129). The difference in the mean change between the 2 groups was -0.7 (two-sided 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to -0.1). The noninferiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was verified within the noninferiority margin (1.1). The superiority of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day to pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day was also investigated and confirmed in the full analysis set, according to the study protocol. In subgroup analyses, the effectiveness of multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day was consistent in all subgroups. There was no difference in safety between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Multimatrix mesalazine 4.8 g/day has higher efficacy and shows no difference in safety in mildly to moderately active UC, in comparison with pH-dependent-release mesalazine 3.6 g/day.

Long-term administration of escitalopram in patients with social anxiety disorder in Japan.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of escitalopram in patients with social anxiety disorder in Japan. METHODS: A 52-week, open-label study was conducted in Japanese patients with social anxiety disorder with a total score ≥60 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Japanese Version (LSAS-J) and ≥4 on the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Scale. Escitalopram 10 mg/day was administered for the first week and could be increased to 20 mg/day. RESULTS: The study included 158 patients: 81.0% (128/158) completed 52 weeks of escitalopram treatment, 68.4% (108/158) increased their dose to 20 mg/day, and 56.3% (89/158) remained on 20 mg/day. Adverse drug reactions were reported by 57.6% (91/158) of patients. The most common (incidence ≥10%) were somnolence and nausea. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was similar in extensive and poor metabolizers of cytochrome P450 2C19. No adverse drug reactions increased in incidence by >5% after week 12. The incidence of serious adverse events was 1.3% (2/158). No deaths occurred. The LSAS-J total scores improved until week 52. The LSAS-J response rate (≥30% improvement in LSAS-J) was 69.0%, the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale response rate (≤2) was 73.0%, and the LSAS-J remission rate (≤30) was 27.0%. CONCLUSION: In this first 52-week clinical study of social anxiety disorder, escitalopram 10-20 mg/day was safe, well tolerated, and effective in Japanese patients.

Efficacy of escitalopram in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis versus placebo.

Escitalopram is the most selective of the serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. We conducted a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies where escitalopram was used to treat patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Data from all randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled studies in SAD with escitalopram from both specialist settings and general practice were used. Patients met the DSM-IV criteria for SAD, were ≥18 years old, and had a Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) ≥60. The primary outcome measure was the estimated treatment difference in LSAS total score at Week 12. Secondary outcome measures included the estimated treatment difference in the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score at Week 12. A total of 1598 patients from 3 randomised controlled trials were included in the analyses. Escitalopram (n=1061) was superior to placebo (n=537), with an estimated treatment difference on the LSAS of -9.2 points (95%CI: [-14.4; -4.0], p<0.01) (escitalopram 5mg/day), -4.6 points (95%CI: [-8.1; -1.0], p<0.01) (escitalopram 10mg/day), -10.1 points (95%CI: [-13.7; -6.5], p<0.01) (escitalopram 20mg/day) and -7.3 points (95%CI: [-12.3; -2.2], p<0.01) (escitalopram 10-20mg/day). For the CGI-S, the corresponding values were -0.55 points (95%CI: [-0.79; -0.31], p<0.01) (escitalopram 5mg/day), -0.26 points (95%CI: [-0.42; -0.10], p<0.01) (escitalopram 10mg/day), -0.48 points (95%CI: [-0.64; -0.31], p<0.01) (escitalopram 20mg/day) and -0.29 points (95%CI: [-0.51; -0.07], p<0.05) (escitalopram 10-20mg/day). The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was 7.2% for escitalopram, compared with 4.3% for placebo (p<0.05). In this meta-analysis, all doses of escitalopram showed significant superiority in efficacy versus placebo in the treatment of patients with SAD.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of escitalopram in patients with social anxiety disorder in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram (10 and 20 mg/day) in Japanese patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients aged 18-64 years with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV-TR defined SAD, a Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Japanese version (LSAS-J) total score ≥60 and a Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 at baseline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo, escitalopram 10 mg or escitalopram 20 mg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 12 in the LSAS-J total score for both escitalopram 10 mg and 20 mg versus placebo (ANCOVA, FAS, LOCF), using a hierarchical testing procedure. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included LSAS-J sensitivity analyses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has the www.japic.or.jp identifier: JapicCTI-121842. RESULTS: For the primary efficacy endpoint, the difference from placebo in the LSAS-J was -3.9 (p = 0.089) for escitalopram 10 mg. Since the superiority of escitalopram 10 mg over placebo was not confirmed, an analysis without multiplicity adjustment was made, which showed a difference for escitalopram 20 mg versus placebo of -9.8 (p < 0.001). In pre-specified sensitivity analyses, the difference versus placebo was -4.9 (p = 0.035) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and -5.0 (p = 0.028) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 10 mg) and -10.1 (p < 0.001) (ANCOVA, FAS, OC) and -10.6 (p < 0.001) (MMRM, FAS) (escitalopram 20 mg). Common adverse events (incidence ≥5% and significantly different from placebo) were somnolence, nausea and ejaculation disorder. CONCLUSION: Escitalopram was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by patients with SAD in Japan. Study limitations are discussed including patient characteristics.

Statistical comparison of random allocation methods in cancer clinical trials.

The selection of a trial design is an important issue in the planning of clinical trials. One of the most important considerations in trial design is the method of treatment allocation and appropriate analysis plan corresponding to the design. In this article, we conducted computer simulations using the actual data from 2158 rectal cancer patients enrolled in the surgery-alone group from seven randomized controlled trials in Japan to compare the performance of allocation methods, simple randomization, stratified randomization and minimization in relatively small-scale trials (total number of two groups are 50, 100, 150 or 200 patients). The degree of imbalance in prognostic factors between groups was evaluated by changing the allocation probability of minimization from 1.00 to 0.70 by 0.05. The simulation demonstrated that minimization provides the best performance to ensure balance in the number of patients between groups and prognostic factors. Moreover, to achieve the 1 percentile for the p-value of chi-square test around 0.50 with respect to balance in prognostic factors, the allocation probability of minimization was required to be set to 0.95 for 50, 0.80 for 100, 0.75 for 150 and 0.70 for 200 patients. When the sample size was larger, sufficient balance could be achieved even if reducing allocation probability. The simulation using actual data demonstrated that unadjusted tests for the allocation factors resulted in conservative type I errors when dynamic allocation, such as minimization, was used. In contrast, adjusted tests for allocation factors as covariates improved type I errors closer to the nominal significance level and they provided slightly higher power. In conclusion, both the statistical and clinical validity of minimization was demonstrated in our study.