Efficacy and Safety of Pemafibrate, a Novel Selective PPARα Modulator in Chinese Patients with Dyslipidemia: A Double-Masked, Randomized, Placebo- and Active-Controlled Comparison Trial.

AIMS: Pemafibrate substantially lowers serum triglyceride (TG) levels and increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels primarily in Japan, but it has not been evaluated in China. We aimed to confirm the efficacy and safety of pemafibrate in Chinese patients with hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C levels by comparing placebo and fenofibrate. METHODS: A multicenter, double-masked trial was conducted in China involving 344 patients with high TG and low HDL-C levels randomly assigned to one of four groups: pemafibrate 0.2 mg/d, pemafibrate 0.4 mg/d, fenofibrate 200 mg/d, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in fasting TG levels. RESULTS: The percentage change in TG levels from baseline was -34.1%, -44.0%, -30.5%, and 6.5% in the pemafibrate 0.2 mg/d, pemafibrate 0.4 mg/d, fenofibrate 200 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively. Pemafibrate 0.4 mg/d significantly reduced TG levels compared with that in both placebo (p＜0.0001) and fenofibrate groups (p=0.0083). Significant improvements in HDL-C, remnant cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A1 levels were also observed with both doses of pemafibrate than with the placebo. Pemafibrate showed significantly smaller changes in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and serum creatinine levels than those with fenofibrate. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients, pemafibrate exhibited superior efficacy in improving TG levels and enhanced hepatic and renal safety compared to fenofibrate. Thus, pemafibrate may represent a promising therapeutic option for dyslipidemia in Chinese patients.

Drug-drug interactions between pemafibrate and statins on pharmacokinetics in healthy male volunteers: Open-label, randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover studies.

Elevated triglyceride levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events despite guideline-based statin treatment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) agonists exert a significant triglyceride-lowering effect. However, combination therapy of PPARα agonists with statins poses an increased risk of rhabdomyolysis, which is rare but a major concern of the combination therapy. Pharmacokinetic interaction is suspected to be a contributing factor to the risk. To examine the potential for combination therapy with the selective PPARα modulator (SPPARMα) pemafibrate and statins, drug-drug interaction studies were conducted with open-label, randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover designs for the combination of pemafibrate 0.2 mg twice daily and each of 6 statins once daily: pitavastatin 4 mg/day (n = 18), atorvastatin 20 mg/day (n = 18), rosuvastatin 20 mg/day (n = 29), pravastatin 20 mg/day (n = 18), simvastatin 20 mg/day (n = 20), and fluvastatin 60 mg/day (n = 19), involving healthy male volunteers. The pharmacokinetic parameters of pemafibrate and each of the statins were similar regardless of coadministration. There was neither an effect on the systemic exposure of pemafibrate nor a clinically important increase in the systemic exposure of any of the statins on the coadministration although the systemic exposure of simvastatin was reduced by about 15% and its open acid form by about 60%. The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitory activity in plasma samples from the simvastatin and pemafibrate combination group was about 70% of that in the simvastatin alone group. In conclusion, pemafibrate did not increase the systemic exposure of statins, and vice versa, in healthy male volunteers.

Efficacy and Safety of Pemafibrate Extended-Release Tablet: a Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group Comparison Trial.

AIMS: Pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator that lowers serum triglyceride levels and increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, is approved for treating dyslipidemia as twice-daily immediate-release (IR) tablets. A once-daily extended-release (XR) tablet has also been developed. We aimed to confirm the non-inferiority of XR (0.2 or 0.4 mg/day; once daily) to IR (0.2 mg/day; twice daily) in lowering triglyceride levels in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study included patients with fasting triglycerides ≥ 200 mg/dL who received IR (0.2 mg/day) or XR (0.2 or 0.4 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change in fasting triglyceride levels from baseline to 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Common treatment effects at weeks 4 through 12 were compared between groups using repeated analysis of covariance. RESULTS: In 356 randomized patients, fasting triglyceride levels decreased by 48.0%, 43.8%, and 48.0% with IR 0.2, XR 0.2, and XR 0.4 mg/day, respectively, confirming the non-inferiority of both XR regimens to IR. The proportion of patients who achieved fasting triglycerides ＜150 mg/dL was 45.7%, 37.4%, and 51.7%, while the percentage change of triglycerides in the subgroup with baseline triglycerides ≥ 500 mg/dL was -59.3%, -52.2%, and -66.3% with IR 0.2, XR 0.2, and XR 0.4 mg/day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: XR (0.2 and 0.4 mg/day) was non-inferior to IR (0.2 mg/day). XR 0.4 mg/day demonstrated a more potent triglyceride-lowering effect than XR 0.2 mg/day and should be considered for patients with high triglyceride levels.

Long-term intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy and safety of ripasudil-brimonidine fixed-dose combination for glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ripasudil-brimonidine fixed-dose combination (RBFC), a new intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication for glaucoma and ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: This prospective, multicentre (23 sites in Japan), open-label study enrolled patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), OHT or exfoliative glaucoma and assigned them to one of four combination therapy cohorts, based on previous treatment(s) received: prostaglandin (PG) analogue (Cohort 1); PG analogue and beta-adrenoceptor blocker (ß-blocker) (Cohort 2); PG analogue, ß-blocker and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (Cohort 3); or other/no treatment (Cohort 4). After a ≥ 4-week screening period, eligible patients received twice-daily RBFC for 52 weeks in addition to the treatments they were already receiving. Efficacy was assessed by change in IOP from baseline through week 52. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were monitored throughout. RESULTS: In total, 179 patients from Cohort 1 (n = 48), Cohort 2 (n = 44), Cohort 3 (n = 41) and Cohort 4 (n = 46) entered the RBFC treatment period. For all cohorts, mean IOP was significantly reduced at 11:00 (2 h after instillation of RBFC) through week 52 with the changes from baseline at week 52 of - 2.7 to - 4.1 mmHg across cohorts; all p < 0.001. Common ADRs were conjunctival hyperaemia (58%), allergic conjunctivitis (18%) and blepharitis (17%), most of which were mild in severity. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrated the long-term efficacy and safety of RBFC, both alone and in combination with other anti-glaucoma agents. RBFC may offer a new treatment option for the long-term management of glaucoma and OHT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials Identifier: jRCT2080225063. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 17 February 2020.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of K-924 Pitavastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-dose Combination in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia: A Phase III, Multi-center, Open-label Trial.

AIM: Ezetimibe administration with ongoing statin therapy is an effective option for further lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Thus, we investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of pitavastatin/ezetimibe (K-924 LD: 2 mg/10 mg; K-924 HD: 4 mg/10 mg). METHODS: We conducted a phase III, multicenter, open-label trial involving patients with hypercholesterolemia receiving pitavastatin (2 or 4 mg) who had not achieved their LDL-C management target. Patients were enrolled into the K-924 LD and HD groups based on whether they had received pitavastatin 2 and 4 mg, respectively, and treated for 52 weeks. K-924 was administered orally once daily. The primary objective was to examine the percent change in LDL-C from baseline at week 52 with last observation carried forward imputation (LOCF) in all patients. RESULTS: Of the 109 patients evaluated, 62 and 47 were assigned to the K-924 LD and HD groups, respectively. In all patients, LDL-C decreased by -30.3±14.3% (p＜0.001) from baseline (134.4±37.9 mg/dL). Consequently, 91.8% and 37.5% of the patients for primary and secondary prevention reached their LDL-C management target, respectively. These results were consistent in both the K-924 LD and HD groups. In the safety analysis, a single adverse drug reaction occurred in a patient in the K-924 HD group. CONCLUSION: After replacing pitavastatin monotherapy, K-924 was found to be effective and well-tolerated over 52 weeks. Thus, K-924 can contribute to intensifying LDL-C-lowering therapy without increasing the number of medications.

Reductions in liver enzymes are associated with anti-hyperglycaemic and anti-obesity effects of tofogliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes: Post-hoc analyses.

AIMS: How the pathology of type 2 diabetes (T2D), including hyperglycaemia and obesity, affects liver enzymes has not been clinically demonstrated. Thus, we compared time courses of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) with those of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight (BW) during treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor tofogliflozin for T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We post-hoc analysed preexisting data on 1046 people with T2D administered tofogliflozin or placebo for 24 weeks in four tofogliflozin studies. First, time courses of percent changes in variables during the intervention were analysed using a mixed effect model to explore the similarity of the time courses and to evaluate time-treatment interactions. Second, clinical factors related to the percent changes in GGT and ALT were clarified using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: GGT levels and FPG values rapidly and significantly decreased via tofogliflozin as early as week 4, with decreases maintained until week 24. Conversely, BW and ALT decreased progressively until week 24. Time courses of FPG (p = .365, time-treatment interaction) and GGT (p = .510) reductions were parallel between tofogliflozin and placebo from weeks 4 to 24, while BW and ALT reductions (p < .001, respectively) were not. Reductions in GGT at week 24 were associated with reductions in FPG and BW at week 24, whereas ALT reductions were only associated with reductions in BW. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in GGT and ALT were associated with the anti-hyperglycaemic and anti-obesity effects of tofogliflozin, respectively, in people with T2D. Therefore, GGT and ALT may be surrogate markers for hyperglycaemia and obesity in T2D.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug administered to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Fundamental research suggests that ivermectin is effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option. METHODS: This multi-regional (Japan and Thailand), multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 (IVERMILCO Study). The participants took a specified number of the investigational product (ivermectin or placebo) tablets of, adjusted to a dose of 0.3-0.4 mg/kg, orally on an empty stomach once daily for three days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time at which clinical symptoms first showed an improving trend by 168 h after investigational product administration. RESULTS: A total of 1030 eligible participants were assigned to receive the investigational product; 502 participants received ivermectin and 527 participants received a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was approximately 96 h (approximately four days) for both ivermectin and placebo groups, which did not show statistically significant difference (stratified log-rank test, p = 0.61). The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions did not show statistically significant differences between the ivermectin and placebo groups (chi-square test, p = 0.97, p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

Crossover Randomized Study of Pharmacologic Effects of Ripasudil-Brimonidine Fixed-Dose Combination Versus Ripasudil or Brimonidine.

INTRODUCTION: Multidrug regimens for glaucoma treatment often result in adherence issues due to inconvenience; these issues may be improved with fixed-dose combination drugs. The ophthalmic solution of ripasudil-brimonidine fixed-dose combination (RBFC; K-232) is the first treatment combining a Rho kinase inhibitor and an α2-adrenoceptor agonist, and has demonstrated ability to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) and have various effects on conjunctival hyperemia and corneal endothelial cell morphology. This study evaluates the pharmacologic effects of RBFC treatment versus its separate components-ripasudil or brimonidine. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint study with 3 × 3 crossover design randomly assigned healthy adult men to three groups (1:1:1) to undergo consecutive 8-day administration phases (with drug-free intervals of at least 5 days). Subjects received twice-daily instillation of RBFC → ripasudil → brimonidine (group A), ripasudil → brimonidine → RBFC (group B), or brimonidine → RBFC → ripasudil (group C). Endpoints included change in IOP, severity of conjunctival hyperemia, corneal endothelial cell morphology, pupil diameter, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects were assigned in total (six to each group). RBFC significantly reduced IOP from baseline at 1 h post-instillation on days 1 and 8 (12.7 vs. 9.1 and 9.0 mmHg, respectively; both P < 0.001), and provided significantly greater IOP reductions than ripasudil or brimonidine at several time points. The most common adverse drug reaction with all three treatments was mild conjunctival hyperemia, which transiently increased in severity with RBFC or ripasudil, peaking at 15 min post-instillation. In post hoc analyses, conjunctival hyperemia scores were lower with RBFC than with ripasudil at several time points. Transient morphologic changes in corneal endothelial cells occurred for up to several hours with RBFC or ripasudil, but not with brimonidine. Pupil diameter did not change with RBFC. CONCLUSION: RBFC significantly reduced IOP compared with each agent alone. A combination of each agent's pharmacologic profile was observed in that of RBFC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials; Registration No. jRCT2080225220.

Efficacy and Safety of Pitavastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-Dose Combination vs. Pitavastatin: Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

AIM: We compared the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. A total of 293 patients were randomly assigned into four groups receiving 2 mg pitavastatin, 4 mg pitavastatin, 2 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 LD), and 4 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 HD) once daily for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The percentage changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the primary endpoint, were -39.5% for 2 mg pitavastatin, -45.2% for 4 mg pitavastatin, -51.4% for K-924 LD, and -57.8% for K-924 HD. Compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination significantly reduced LDL-C, total cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Meanwhile, the cholesterol synthesis marker, lathosterol, was significantly decreased with pitavastatin monotherapy and the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, although the decrease was attenuated in the latter. On the other hand, the cholesterol absorption markers, beta-sitosterol and campesterol, were reduced with the fixed-dose combination but not with pitavastatin monotherapy. The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was not significantly different between the two groups receiving the fixed-dose combination and monotherapy. The mean values of laboratory tests that are related to liver function and myopathy increased but remained within the reference range in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination showed an excellent LDL-C-reducing effect by the complementary pharmacological action of each component, and its safety profile was similar to that of pitavastatin monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04289649).

Ripasudil-Brimonidine Fixed-Dose Combination vs Ripasudil or Brimonidine: Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: To confirm the superiority of the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of the ripasudil-brimonidine fixed-dose combination (RBFC, K-232) to ripasudil 0.4% or brimonidine 0.1% ophthalmic solution. DESIGN: Two prospective multicenter, randomized, double- or single-masked, active-controlled, phase 3 trials. METHODS: Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension whose IOP level was ≥18 mm Hg during treatment with ripasudil or brimonidine alone were randomized to 2 groups (RBFC and ripasudil) in a 1:1 ratio in the ripasudil-controlled trial and to 3 groups (RBFC, brimonidine, and ripasudil-brimonidine combination) in a 2:2:1 ratio in the brimonidine-controlled trial. The allocated study drugs were instilled twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in IOP 2 hours after instillation (11 AM) from the baseline to weeks 4, 6, and 8. RESULTS: There were 206 patients randomized in the ripasudil-controlled trial. Changes in IOP were -2.6 and -1.2 mm Hg in the RBFC and ripasudil groups, respectively, with a difference of -1.4 mm Hg (95% CI = -1.8 to -1.0 mm Hg; P < .001). There were 282 randomized patients in the brimonidine-controlled trial. Changes in IOP were -3.4 and -1.5 mm Hg in the RBFC and brimonidine groups, respectively, with a difference of -1.8 mm Hg (95% CI = -2.3 to -1.4 mm Hg; P < .001). The most frequent adverse event was conjunctival hyperemia. CONCLUSIONS: The IOP-lowering effect of RBFC was superior to that of ripasudil or brimonidine.

Efficacy and Safety of K-877 (Pemafibrate), a Selective PPARα Modulator, in European Patients on Statin Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: High plasma triglyceride (TG) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Fibrates lower TG levels through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) agonism. Currently available fibrates, however, have relatively low selectivity for PPARα. The aim of this trial was to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of K-877 (pemafibrate), a selective PPARα modulator, in statin-treated European patients with hypertriglyceridemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 408 statin-treated adults were recruited from 68 European sites for this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. They had fasting TG between 175 and 500 mg/dL and HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) ≤50 mg/dL for men and ≤55 mg/dL for women. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or one of six pemafibrate regimens: 0.05 mg twice a day, 0.1 mg twice a day, 0.2 mg twice a day, 0.1 mg once daily, 0.2 mg once daily, or 0.4 mg once daily. The primary end points were TG and non-HDL-C level lowering at week 12. RESULTS: Pemafibrate reduced TG at all doses (adjusted P value <0.001), with the greatest placebo-corrected reduction from baseline to week 12 observed in the 0.2-mg twice a day treatment group (54.4%). Reductions in non-HDL-C did not reach statistical significance. Reductions in TG were associated with improvements in other markers for TG-rich lipoprotein metabolism, including reductions in apoB48, apoCIII, and remnant cholesterol and an increase in HDL-C levels. Pemafibrate increased LDL-cholesterol levels, whereas apoB100 was unchanged. Pemafibrate was safe and well-tolerated, with only minor increases in serum creatinine and homocysteine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Pemafibrate is effective, safe, and well-tolerated for the reduction of TG in European populations with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.

Randomised clinical trial: Pemafibrate, a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator (SPPARMα), versus placebo in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Pemafibrate is a novel, selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator (SPPARMα). In mice, Pemafibrate improved the histological features of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In patients with dyslipidaemia, it improved serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT). AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pemafibrate in patients with high-risk, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised multicentre, phase 2 trial randomised 118 patients (1:1) to either 0.2 mg Pemafibrate or placebo, orally, twice daily for 72 weeks. The key inclusion criteria included liver fat content of ≥10% by magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF); liver stiffness of ≥2.5 kPa, by magnetic resonance elastography (MRE); and elevated ALT levels. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in MRI-PDFF from baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoints included MRE-based liver stiffness, ALT, serum liver fibrosis markers and lipid parameters. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary endpoint (-5.3% vs -4.2%; treatment difference -1.0%, P = 0.85). However, MRE-based liver stiffness significantly decreased compared to placebo at week 48 (treatment difference -5.7%, P = 0.036), and was maintained at week 72 (treatment difference -6.2%, P = 0.024), with significant reduction in ALT and LDL-C. Adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups and therapy was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Pemafibrate did not decrease liver fat content but had significant reduction in MRE-based liver stiffness. Pemafibrate may be a promising therapeutic agent for NAFLD/NASH, and also be a candidate for combination therapy with agents that reduce liver fat content. ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03350165.

Effects of pemafibrate on glucose metabolism markers and liver function tests in patients with hypertriglyceridemia: a pooled analysis of six phase 2 and phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Increased risk of cardiovascular events is associated not only with dyslipidemias, but also with abnormalities in glucose metabolism and liver function. This study uses pooled analysis to explore the in-depth effects of pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator (SPPARMα) already known to decrease elevated triglycerides, on glucose metabolism and liver function in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of six phase 2 and phase 3 Japanese randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials that examined the effects of daily pemafibrate 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, and 0.4 mg on glucose metabolism markers and liver function tests (LFTs). Primary endpoints were changes in glucose metabolism markers and LFTs from baseline after 12 weeks of pemafibrate treatment. All adverse events and adverse drug reactions were recorded as safety endpoints. RESULTS: The study population was 1253 patients randomized to placebo (n = 298) or pemafibrate 0.1 mg/day (n = 127), 0.2 mg/day (n = 584), or 0.4 mg/day (n = 244). Participant mean age was 54.3 years, 65.4 % had BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, 35.8 % had type 2 diabetes, and 42.6 % had fatty liver. Fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR decreased significantly in all pemafibrate groups compared to placebo. The greatest decrease was for pemafibrate 0.4 mg/day: least square (LS) mean change from baseline in fasting glucose - 0.25 mmol/L; fasting insulin - 3.31 µU/mL; HOMA-IR - 1.28. ALT, γ-GT, ALP, and total bilirubin decreased significantly at all pemafibrate doses vs. placebo, with the greatest decrease in the pemafibrate 0.4 mg/day group: LS mean change from baseline in ALT - 7.6 U/L; γ-GT - 37.3 U/L; ALP - 84.7 U/L; and total bilirubin - 2.27 µmol/L. Changes in HbA1c and AST did not differ significantly from placebo in any pemafibrate groups in the overall study population. The decreases from baseline in LFTs and glucose metabolism markers except for HbA1c were notable among patients with higher baseline values. FGF21 increased significantly in all pemafibrate groups compared to placebo, with the greatest increase in the pemafibrate 0.4 mg/day group. Adverse event rates were similar in all groups including placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hypertriglyceridemia, pemafibrate can improve glucose metabolism and liver function, and increase FGF21, without increasing adverse event risk.

Evaluation of Data Errors and Monitoring Activities in a Trial in Japan Using a Risk-Based Approach Including Central Monitoring and Site Risk Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Risk-based monitoring (RBM) is a slow uptake in some trial sponsors. There are three main reasons for this. First, there is the fear of making large investments into advanced RBM technology solutions. Second, it is considered that RBM is most suitable for large, complex trials. Third, there is the fear of errors in both critical and non-critical data, appearing as reduced on-site monitoring is being conducted. METHODS: Our RBM team identified, evaluated, and mitigated trial risks, as well as devised a monitoring strategy. The clinical research associate (CRA) assessed the site risks, and the RBM team conducted central monitoring. We compared all data errors and on-site monitoring time between the partial switching sites [sites that had switched to partial source data verification (SDV) and source data review (SDR)] and the 100% SDV and SDR sites (sites that had implemented 100% SDV and SDR). RESULTS: Partial switching sites did not require any critical data correction and had a smaller number of data corrections through on-site monitoring than the 100% SDV and SDR sites. The RBM strategy reduced the on-site monitoring time by 30%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that RBM can be successfully implemented through the use of site risk assessment and central monitoring with practically no additional investment in technology and still produced similar results in terms of subject safety and data quality, as well as the cost savings that have been reported in global complex studies.

Association of estimated plasma volume and weight loss after long-term administration and subsequent discontinuation of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor tofogliflozin.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2) are drugs that have been reported to have several effects through the regulation of plasma volume, for example, antihypertensive effects. This study aimed to clarify the impact of long-term administration and subsequent discontinuation of the SGLT2 inhibitor tofogliflozin on estimated plasma volume (ePV), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the relationship between changes in ePV, BNP and body weight (BW). Data from 157 participants with type 2 diabetes receiving tofogliflozin monotherapy in a phase 3 study were analysed. Changes in variables or correlations among them during a 52-week administration and a 2-week post-treatment period were investigated. Percent change in ePV was calculated using the Strauss formula. Significant decreases in BW, ePV and ln-transformed BNP (ln-BNP) were noted by week 52. %ΔBW was not significantly correlated with %ΔePV and Δln-BNP, while %ΔePV was significantly correlated with Δln-BNP. Two weeks after discontinuation of tofogliflozin, BW, ePV and ln-BNP were significantly increased. %ΔBW was significantly correlated with %ΔePV and Δln-BNP. Furthermore, ePV and BNP were significantly higher than baseline levels.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, anagliptin, alters hepatic insulin clearance in relation to the glycemic status in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the impact of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, anagliptin, on hepatic insulin clearance (HIC) in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients and explored its relationship to glycemic status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on 765 participants in anagliptin phase 2 and 3 studies were analyzed. Adjusted changes in variables during 12 weeks of anagliptin therapy were compared with a placebo. HIC was calculated as the ratio, C-peptide area under the curve 0-120 min to insulin area under the curve 0-120 min, after a meal tolerance test. To explore the effects of baseline HIC levels on variables, participants receiving anagliptin were divided according to quartiles of baseline HIC. Furthermore, multivariate analysis investigated the association between baseline HIC levels and glycemic status. RESULTS: Anagliptin significantly reduced glycosylated hemoglobin levels (P < 0.001 vs placebo) and HIC levels (P < 0.01). Longer duration of diabetes, lower body mass index, higher glycosylated hemoglobin and lower insulin secretion capacity were observed with increases in baseline HIC levels. Improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin, glycoalbumin and 1,5-anhydroglucitol levels were greater in the relatively higher HIC group (baseline HIC levels ≥median) than in the lower HIC group (

Challenges on Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials: An Industry Survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Two issues on clinical trials with multiple endpoints were surveyed: (1) the terminology of multiple endpoints, relationship between rare events and endpoints, and differences in multiplicity adjustment between regions; and (2) the current practice on multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation. This article provides a summary of the results of a survey on the first issue. METHODS: The survey was conducted among 63 members of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association from October to November 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-five companies based in Japan and 12 companies based in other countries, 47 companies in total, responded to the survey. The terms co-primary endpoints, secondary endpoint, and composite endpoint were used in a variety of ways. An endpoint for a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely differed between regions. Although the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency did not demand multiplicity adjustment, it was considered in clinical trials with multiple endpoints for approval in Japan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of terminology differed from the definition in the Food and Drug Administration guidance and the European Medicines Agency guideline. There remain challenges on a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely and multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

Multiplicity Adjustment and Sample Size Calculation in Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints: An Industry Survey of Current Practices in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Two issues in clinical trials with multiple endpoints were surveyed: (1) the terminology of multiple endpoints, the relationship between rare events and endpoints, and the differences in multiplicity adjustment between regions, and (2) the current practice on multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation. This article summarizes the results of the survey on the second issue. METHODS: Eligible trials for this survey fulfilled the following conditions: (1) confirmatory phase 3 trial; (2) use of multiple primary endpoints, co-primary endpoints, key secondary endpoint(s) or composite endpoint(s); (3) inclusion of Japanese participants; and (4) protocols created in 2010 or later. The survey was conducted at member companies of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association from October 2017 to November 2017. RESULTS: Useable responses were obtained from 78 trials in 13 companies based in Japan and 9 companies based in other countries. The Bonferroni procedure was mostly used in clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints, while multiple testing procedures that consider a hierarchy of endpoints or a structure of hypotheses were used in clinical trials with key secondary endpoint(s). In sample size calculation, we can consider the probability of study success, such as the probability of statistical significance in at least one comparison of primary endpoints; however, other probabilities were also considered. This survey reveals that multiplicity adjustment and the correlation of endpoints were not always considered in sample size calculation. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials with multiple endpoints, clinical importance was considered when determining multiple testing procedures. Challenges remain with the definition of power, the consideration of multiple testing procedures and the correlation between endpoints in sample size calculation.

Restricted mean survival time as a summary measure of time-to-event outcome.

Many clinical research studies evaluate a time-to-event outcome, illustrate survival functions, and conventionally report estimated hazard ratios to express the magnitude of the treatment effect when comparing between groups. However, it may not be straightforward to interpret the hazard ratio clinically and statistically when the proportional hazards assumption is invalid. In some recent papers published in clinical journals, the use of restricted mean survival time (RMST) or τ-year mean survival time is discussed as one of the alternative summary measures for the time-to-event outcome. The RMST is defined as the expected value of time to event limited to a specific time point corresponding to the area under the survival curve up to the specific time point. This article summarizes the necessary information to conduct statistical analysis using the RMST, including the definition and statistical properties of the RMST, adjusted analysis methods, sample size calculation, information fraction for the RMST difference, and clinical and statistical meaning and interpretation. Additionally, we discuss how to set the specific time point to define the RMST from two main points of view. We also provide developed SAS codes to determine the sample size required to detect an expected RMST difference with appropriate power and reconstruct individual survival data to estimate an RMST reference value from a reported survival curve.