Endocrine profile of the kisspeptin receptor agonist MVT-602 in healthy premenopausal women with and without ovarian stimulation: results from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical tricals.

BACKGROUND: Kisspeptin is an essential regulator of hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone release and is required for physiological ovulation. Native kisspeptin-54 can induce oocyte maturation during in vitro fertilization treatment, including in women who are at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. MVT-602 is a potent kisspeptin receptor agonist with prospective utility to treat anovulatory disorders by triggering oocyte maturation and ovulation during medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Currently, the endocrine profile of MVT-602 during ovarian stimulation is unreported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the endocrine profile of MVT-602 in the follicular phase of healthy premenopausal women (phase-1 trial), and after minimal ovarian stimulation to more closely reflect the endocrine milieu encountered during MAR (phase-2a trial). DESIGN: Two randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding trials. SETTING: Clinical trials unit. PATIENTS: Healthy women aged 18-35 years, either without (phase-1; n = 24), or with ovarian stimulation (phase-2a; n = 75). INTERVENTIONS: Phase-1: single subcutaneous dose of MVT-602 (0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 µg) or placebo, (n = 6 per dose). Phase-2a: single subcutaneous dose of MVT-602 (0.1, 0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 µg; n = 16-17 per dose), triptorelin 0.2 mg (n = 5; active comparator), or placebo (n = 5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phase-1: safety/tolerability; pharmacokinetics; and pharmacodynamics (luteinizing hormone [LH] and other reproductive hormones). Phase-2a: safety/tolerability; pharmacokinetics; pharmacodynamics (LH and other reproductive hormones); and time to ovulation assessed by transvaginal ultrasound. RESULTS: In both the trials, MVT-602 was safe and well tolerated across the entire dose range. It was rapidly absorbed and eliminated, with a mean elimination half-life of 1.3-2.2 hours. In the phase-2a trial, LH concentrations increased dose dependently; mean maximum change from baseline of 82.4 IU/L at 24.8 hours was observed after administration of 3 µg MVT-602 and remained >15 IU/L for 33 hours. Time to ovulation after drug administration was 3.3-3.9 days (MVT-602), 3.4 days (triptorelin), and 5.5 days (placebo). Ovulation occurred within 5 days of administration in 100% (3 µg), 88% (1 µg), 82% (0.3 µg), and 75% (0.1 µg), of women after MVT-602, 100% after triptorelin and 60% after placebo. CONCLUSIONS: MVT-602 induces LH concentrations of similar amplitude and duration as the physiological midcycle LH surge with potential utility for induction of oocyte maturation and ovulation during MAR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRA-CT: 2017-003812-38, 2018-001379-20.

Cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by Gram-negative uropathogens: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria represent the highest priority for addressing global antibiotic resistance. Cefiderocol (S-649266), a new siderophore cephalosporin, has broad activity against Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, including carbapenem-resistant strains. We assessed the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in patients at risk of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. METHODS: We did a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group non-inferiority trial at 67 hospitals in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis or those with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis were randomly assigned (2:1) by an interactive web or voice response system to receive 1 h intravenous infusions of cefiderocol (2 g) or imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) three times daily, every 8 h for 7-14 days. Patients were excluded if they had a baseline urine culture with more than two uropathogens, a fungal urinary tract infection, or pathogens known to be carbapenem resistant. The primary endpoint was the composite of clinical and microbiological outcomes at test of cure (ie, 7 days after treatment cessation), which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% and 20% margins) of cefiderocol versus imipenem-cilastatin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug and had a qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned individuals who received at least one dose of study drug, according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02321800. FINDINGS: Between Feb 5, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016, 452 patients were randomly assigned to cefiderocol (n=303) or imipenem-cilastatin (n=149), of whom 448 patients (n=300 in the cefiderocol group; n=148 in the imipenem-cilastatin group) received treatment. 371 patients (n=252 patients in the cefiderocol group; n=119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group) had qualifying Gram-negative uropathogen (≥1 × 105 CFU/mL) and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At test of cure, the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved by 183 (73%) of 252 patients in the cefiderocol group and 65 (55%) of 119 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with an adjusted treatment difference of 18·58% (95% CI 8·23-28·92; p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of cefiderocol. Cefiderocol was well tolerated. Adverse events occurred in 122 (41%) of 300 patients in the cefiderocol group and 76 (51%) of 148 patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group, with gastrointestinal disorders (ie, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) the most common adverse events for both treatment groups (35 [12%] patients in the cefiderocol group and 27 [18%] patients in the imipenem-cilastatin group). INTERPRETATION: Intravenous infusion of cefiderocol (2 g) three times daily was non-inferior compared with imipenem-cilastatin (1 g each) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in people with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. The results of this study will provide the basis for submission of a New Drug Application to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials of hospital-acquired pneumonia and carbapenem-resistant infections are ongoing. FUNDING: Shionogi & Co Ltd, Shionogi Inc.

Safety and efficacy of addition of sitagliptin to rapid-acting insulin secretagogues for glycemic control, including post-prandial hyperglycemia, among Japanese with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The safety and efficacy of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to glinides, rapid-acting insulin secretagogues, were evaluated for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This 52-week study consisted of a 12-week double-blind period, followed by a 40-week open-label period. During the double-blind period, patients were randomized to sitagliptin 50 mg q.d. (S/S group) or placebo (P/S group) as add-on therapy to glinide monotherapy. During the open-label period, all patients in both groups were administered sitagliptin 50 mg q.d. (or 100 mg q.d. after up-titration). During the double-blind period, the overall occurrence of adverse experiences (AE) was similar in both treatment groups. The frequency of reported AE of hypoglycemia in both groups was low and not notably different. The nature of clinical AE during the open-label period for both groups was not notably different from that of clinical AE in the sitagliptin group during the double-blind period. The between-group difference in HbA1c least squares (LS) mean of change from baseline (95 % CI) at Week 12 was -1.1 % (-1.3, -0.8) in favor of sitagliptin (P < 0.001). LS mean of reductions from baseline of fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postmeal glucose were significantly greater in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group: -23.1 mg/dL (-32.2, -13.9) and -51.2 mg/dL (-67.4, -35.0), respectively (both P < 0.001). The changes from baseline in glycemic data in the S/S group remained generally stable throughout the 52-week treatment period.

Addition of sitagliptin to ongoing metformin monotherapy improves glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes over 52 weeks.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, when added to metformin monotherapy was examined in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 52-week, add-on to metformin study, 149 patients were randomly assigned to receive sitagliptin 50 mg or placebo once daily in a double-blind fashion for 12 weeks. Thereafter, all patients who completed the double-blind period of the study received open-label sitagliptin 50 mg once daily for 40 weeks, with the investigator option of increasing sitagliptin to 100 mg once daily for patients who met predefined glycemic thresholds. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) significantly decreased with sitagliptin relative to placebo (between-group difference [95% confidence interval] = -0.7% [-0.9 to -0.5] P < 0.001). At week 12, the mean changes in 2-h post-meal glucose (-2.6 mmol/L [-3.5 to -1.7]) and fasting plasma glucose (-1.0 mmol/L [-1.3 to -0.6]) also decreased significantly with sitagliptin relative to placebo (P < 0.001 for both). Significant improvements from baseline in glycemic control were also observed in the open-label period through to week 52. There were no differences between treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including hypoglycemia and predefined gastrointestinal AEs (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) during the double-blind period, with similar findings in the open-label period. CONCLUSIONS: Over a period of 52 weeks, the addition of sitagliptin once-daily to ongoing metformin therapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00363948).

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in a randomized placebo-controlled 54-week trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic approaches are needed to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a progressive disorder that often requires combination therapy. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin and rosiglitazone in patients with T2D. METHODS: The present study was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group 54-week study conducted at 41 sites across North and South America, Europe, and Asia in 278 patients with HbA1c ranging from ≥7.5% to ≤11.0% despite ongoing combination therapy with metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and rosiglitazone (≥4 mg/day). Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive sitagliptin 100 mg or placebo once daily. The main outcome measure was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 18. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.8%. The mean placebo-adjusted change from baseline in HbA1c with sitagliptin treatment was -0.7% (P < 0.001) at Week 18 and -0.8% (P < 0.001) at Week 54. There were also significant (P < 0.001) reductions in 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose compared with placebo at Weeks 18 and 54. Significantly higher proportions of sitagliptin- than placebo-treated patients had HbA1c<7.0% at Weeks 18 (22% vs 9%; P = 0.003) and 54 (26% vs 14%; P = 0.015). Changes in body weight and the rates of adverse events overall, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups during the 54-week study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2D, the addition of sitagliptin for 54 weeks to ongoing therapy with metformin and rosiglitazone improved glycemic control and was generally well tolerated compared with placebo.

Development of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy can be a life-prolonging treatment for many cancer patients, but it is often associated with profound nausea and vomiting that is so distressing that patients may delay or decline treatment to avoid these side effects. EMEND (aprepitant) is the first and only neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist available on the market for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Aprepitant acts centrally at NK-1 receptors in vomiting centers within the central nervous system to block their activation by substance P released as an unwanted consequence of chemotherapy. By controlling nausea and vomiting, EMEND helps improve patients' daily living and their ability to complete multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The development of aprepitant included a novel nanoparticle formulation to optimize oral absorption and innovative chemistry to discover a prodrug form suitable for intravenous administration to improve compliance and convenience for healthcare professionals and cancer patients.

Sitagliptin added to treatment with ongoing pioglitazone for up to 52 weeks improves glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often require treatment with more than one oral antihyperglycemic agent to achieve their glycemic goal. The present study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as add-on therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥ 6.9% and <10.4%) on pioglitazone monotherapy (15-45 mg/day). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the initial 12-week, double-blind treatment period, patients were randomized (1:1) to sitagliptin 50 mg/day (n = 66) or placebo (n = 68), followed by a 40-week open-label treatment period in which all patients received sitagliptin 50 mg/day that could have been increased to 100 mg/day for patients meeting predefined glycemic parameters. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, mean changes from baseline in HbA1c (the primary end-point), fasting plasma glucose and 2-h post-meal glucose were -0.8%, -0.9 mmol/L and -2.7 mmol/L, respectively, in the sitagliptin group compared with placebo (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse experiences during the double-blind treatment period was similar in both treatment groups, and the incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse experiences were low. In the open-label period, improvements in glycemic parameters with sitagliptin treatment were maintained and sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin as add-on therapy provided significant improvements in glycemic parameters and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on pioglitazone monotherapy. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00372060). (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2011.00120.x, 2011).