Immunomodulatory and clinical effects of receptor-interacting protein kinase 1 (RIPK1) inhibitor eclitasertib (SAR443122) in patients with severe COVID-19: a phase 1b, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1 could mitigate the devastating sequelae of the hyperinflammatory state observed in severe cases of COVID-19. This study explored the immunomodulatory and clinical effects of the receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1 inhibitor SAR443122 (eclitasertib) in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this Phase 1b, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study (NCT04469621) a total of 82 patients were screened, of whom 68 patients were eligible and randomized (2:1) to receive eclitasertib 600 mg (300 mg twice daily) or placebo up to 14 days. Primary outcome was relative change in C-reactive protein from baseline to Day 7. Time to clinical improvement using 7-point ordinal scale, ventilator/respiratory failure-free days, change in SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and biomarkers of severe COVID-19 were explored. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratio (point estimate [90% confidence interval]) of the relative change from baseline in C-reactive protein with eclitasertib vs. placebo on Day 7 was 0.85 (0.49-1.45; p = 0.30). Median time to 50% decrease in C-reactive protein from baseline was 3 days vs. 5 days (p = 0.056) with eclitasertib vs. placebo. Median time to ≥ 2-point improvement on 7-point clinical symptoms scale was 8 days vs. 10 days with eclitasertib vs. placebo (p = 0.38). Mean ventilator/respiratory failure-free days, change in baseline-adjusted SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and clinical biomarkers showed consistent numerical improvements with eclitasertib vs. placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and condition aggravated/worsened COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Eclitasertib was well tolerated with consistent trends toward more rapid resolution of inflammatory biomarkers and clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 patients than placebo. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04469621, first posted on clinicaltrials.gov on July 14, 2020.

Endothelial-protective effects of a G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 agonist, SAR247799, in type-2 diabetes rats and a randomized placebo-controlled patient trial.

AIMS: SAR247799 is a G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 (S1P1 ) agonist designed to activate endothelial S1P1 and provide endothelial-protective properties, while limiting S1P1 desensitization and consequent lymphocyte-count reduction associated with higher doses. The aim was to show whether S1P1 activation can promote endothelial effects in patients and, if so, select SAR247799 doses for further clinical investigation. METHODS: Type-2 diabetes patients, enriched for endothelial dysfunction (flow-mediated dilation, FMD <7%; n = 54), were randomized, in 2 sequential cohorts, to 28-day once-daily treatment with SAR247799 (1 or 5 mg in ascending cohorts), placebo or 50 mg sildenafil (positive control) in a 5:2:2 ratio per cohort. Endothelial function was assessed by brachial artery FMD. Renal function, biomarkers and lymphocytes were measured following 5-week SAR247799 treatment (3 doses) to Zucker diabetic fatty rats and the data used to select the doses for human testing. RESULTS: The maximum FMD change from baseline vs placebo for all treatments was reached on day 35; mean differences vs placebo were 0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.34 to 1.53%; P = .203) for 1 mg SAR247799, 1.07% (95% CI 0.13 to 2.01%; P = .026) for 5 mg SAR247799 and 0.88% (95% CI -0.15 to 1.91%; P = .093) for 50 mg sildenafil. Both doses of SAR247799 were well tolerated, did not affect blood pressure, and were associated with minimal-to-no lymphocyte reduction and small-to-moderate heart rate decrease. CONCLUSION: These data provide the first human evidence suggesting endothelial-protective properties of S1P1 activation, with SAR247799 being as effective as the clinical benchmark, sildenafil. Further clinical testing of SAR247799, at sub-lymphocyte-reducing doses (≤5 mg), is warranted in vascular diseases associated with endothelial dysfunction.

First-in-human study of the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single and multiple oral doses of SAR247799, a selective G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 agonist for endothelial protection.

AIMS: SAR247799 is a selective G-protein-biased sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor-1 (S1P1 ) agonist with potential to restore endothelial function in vascular pathologies. SAR247799, a first-in-class molecule differentiated from previous S1P1 -desensitizing molecules developed for multiple sclerosis, can activate S1P1 without desensitization and consequent lymphopenia. The aim was to characterize SAR247799 for its safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (activation and desensitization). METHODS: SAR247799 was administered orally to healthy subjects in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study with single (2.5-37.5 mg) or 2-week once-daily (0.5-15 mg) doses. An open-label single dose pilot food-interaction arm with 10 mg SAR247799 in cross-over design was also performed. RESULTS: SAR247799 was well tolerated and, at the higher end of the dose ranges, caused the expected dose-dependent pharmacodynamics associated with S1P1 activation (heart rate reduction) and S1P1 desensitization (lymphocyte count reduction). SAR247799 demonstrated dose-proportional increases in exposure and was eliminated with an apparent terminal half-life of 31.2-33.1 hours. Food had a small effect on the pharmacokinetics of SAR247799. SAR247799 had a low volume of distribution (7-23 L), indicating a potential to achieve dose separation for endothelial vs cardiac S1P1 activation pharmacology. A supratherapeutic dose (10 mg) of SAR247799 produced sustained heart rate reduction over 14 days, demonstrating cardiac S1P1 activation without tachyphylaxis. Sub-lymphocyte-reducing doses (≤5 mg) of SAR247799, which, based on preclinical data, are projected to activate S1P1 and exhibit endothelial-protective properties, had minimal-to-no heart rate reduction and displayed no marked safety findings. CONCLUSION: SAR247799 is suitable for exploring the biological role of endothelial S1P1 activation without causing receptor desensitization.

A Pilot Study to Assess the Feasibility of Collecting and Transmitting Clinical Trial Data with Mobile Technologies.

BACKGROUND: The use of mobile technologies for data capture and transmission has the potential to streamline clinical trials, but researchers lack methods for collecting, processing, and interpreting data from these tools. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of a technical platform for collecting and transmitting data from six mobile technologies in the clinic and at home, to apply methods for comparing them to clinical standard devices, and to measure their usability, including how willing subjects were to use them on a regular basis. METHODS: In part 1 of the study, conducted over 3 weeks in the clinic, we tested two device pairs (mobile vs. clinical standard blood pressure monitor and mobile vs. clinical standard spirometer) on 25 healthy volunteers. In part 2 of the study, conducted over 3 days both in the clinic and at home, we tested the same two device pairs as in part 1, plus four additional pairs (mobile vs. clinical standard pulse oximeter, glucose meter, weight scale, and activity monitor), on 22 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Data collection reliability was 98.1% in part 1 of the study and 95.8% in part 2 (the percentages exclude the wearable activity monitor, which collects data continuously). In part 1, 20 of 1,049 overall expected measurements were missing (1.9%), and in part 2, 45 of 1,083 were missing (4.2%). The most common reason for missing data was a single malfunctioning spirometer (13 of 20 total missed readings) in part 1, and that the subject did not take the measurement (22 of 45 total missed readings) in part 2. Also in part 2, a higher proportion of at-home measurements than in-clinic readings were missing (12.6 vs. 2.7%). The data from this experimental study were unable to establish repeatability or agreement for every mobile technology; only the pulse oximeter demonstrated repeatability, and only the weight scale demonstrated agreement with the clinical standard device. Most mobile technologies received high "willingness to use" ratings from the patients on the questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the wireless data transmission and processing platform was dependable. It also identified three critical areas of study for advancing the use of mobile technologies in clinical research: (1) if a mobile technology captures more than one type of endpoint (such as blood pressure and pulse), repeatability and agreement may need to be established for each endpoint to be included in a clinical trial; (2) researchers need to develop criteria for excluding invalid device readings (to be identified by algorithms in real time) for the population studied using ranges based on accumulated subject data and established norms; and (3) careful examination of a mobile technology's performance (reliability, repeatability, and agreement with accepted reference devices) during pilot testing is essential, even for medical devices approved by regulators.