A first-in-human trial on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-eVax, a cellular response-skewed DNA vaccine against COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the need for additional safe, effective, and affordable vaccines gave new impetus into development of vaccine genetic platforms. Here we report the findings from the phase 1, first-in-human, dose-escalation study of COVID-eVax, a DNA vaccine encoding the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Sixty-eight healthy adults received two doses of 0.5, 1, or 2 mg 28 days apart, or a single 2-mg dose, via intramuscular injection followed by electroporation, and they were monitored for 6 months. All participants completed the primary safety and immunogenicity assessments after 8 weeks. COVID-eVax was well tolerated, with mainly mild to moderate solicited adverse events (tenderness, pain, bruising, headache, and malaise/fatigue), less frequent after the second dose, and it induced an immune response (binding antibodies and/or T cells) at all prime-boost doses tested in up to 90% of the volunteers at the highest dose. However, the vaccine did not induce neutralizing antibodies, while particularly relevant was the T cell-mediated immunity, with a robust Th1 response. This T cell-skewed immunological response adds significant information to the DNA vaccine platform and should be assessed in further studies for its protective capacity and potential usefulness also in other therapeutic areas, such as oncology.

Effects of glucosamine sulfate on the use of rescue non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in knee osteoarthritis: Results from the Pharmaco-Epidemiology of GonArthroSis (PEGASus) study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs in Osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) may be expected to decrease the use of concomitant medications for rescue analgesia, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The Pharmaco-Epidemiology of GonArthroSis (PEGASus) study was designed to assess this possibility. METHODS: PEGASus was a cohort study of continuous recruitment of patients with "dynamic" exposure to the investigated SYSADOA (crystalline glucosamine sulfate, glucosamine hydrochloride, chondroitin sulfate, diacerein, and avocado-soybean unsaponifiables, all at approved dosages). Investigators were rheumatologists or general practitioners randomly selected from French telephone lists. Patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis (OA) were recruited when consulting an investigator for a symptom flare and were prescribed, or not, one of the SYSADOAs as per clinical judgment. Follow-up visits were as per routine medical practice in the 12 months following enrollment, with telephone interviews after 1 month and at 4-month intervals thereafter up to 24 months. Use of NSAIDs was recorded, as well as the dynamism of treatment exposure consisting of continuing the prescribed SYSADOA, switching, discontinuation or initiation of a SYSADOA. Patient exposure was expressed in 2-month time units, with any NSAID use as Yes/No binary outcome during each unit. Odds ratios [OR and 95% confidence interval (CI)] of NSAID use were calculated for periods of exposure to each SYSADOA, by multivariate logistic regression for an 80% power and 95% confidence to see a decrease of at least 15%. RESULTS: This report consists of the full data pertaining to crystalline glucosamine sulfate, while results of other SYSADOAs were summarized as available from the French Health Authority (HAS) website (www.has-sante.fr). Of 6451 patients in the PEGASus cohort, 315 patients received crystalline glucosamine sulfate, they were exposed for 481 2-month time units and had an incident use of NSAIDs of 18.7%. In the control cohort (9237 time units) NSAID incident use was 23.8%. Crystalline glucosamine sulfate significantly decreased the risk of NSAID consumption by up to 36% (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.92) in the primary analysis foreseen by the protocol; OR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.54-1.01), i.e. at the very limit of significance, in a sensitivity analysis accounting for an extension of the study and of the control cohort. None of the other SYSADOAs showed any hint of a decrease in the use of NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: Crystalline glucosamine sulfate was the only SYSADOA that decreased the use of NSAIDs in this pharmaco-epidemiology study in patients with knee OA.

Crystalline glucosamine sulfate in the management of knee osteoarthritis: efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties.

Glucosamine is an amino monosaccharide and a natural constituent of glycosaminoglycans in articular cartilage. When administered exogenously, it is used for the treatment of osteoarthritis as a prescription drug or a dietary supplement. The latter use is mainly supported by its perception as a cartilage building block, but it actually exerts specific pharmacologic effects, mainly decreasing interleukin 1-induced gene expression by inhibiting the cytokine intracellular signaling cascade in general and nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB) activation in particular. As a whole, the use of glucosamine in the management of osteoarthritis is supported by the clinical trials performed with the original prescription product, that is, crystalline glucosamine sulfate. This is the stabilized form of glucosamine sulfate, while other formulations or different glucosamine salts (e.g. hydrochloride) have never been shown to be effective. In particular, long-term pivotal trials of crystalline glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg once daily have shown significant and clinically relevant improvement of pain and function limitation (symptom-modifying effect) in knee osteoarthritis. Continuous administration for up to 3 years resulted in significant reduction in the progression of joint structure changes compared with placebo as assessed by measuring radiologic joint space narrowing (structure-modifying effect). The two effects combined may suggest a disease-modifying effect that was postulated based on an observed decrease in the risk of undergoing total joint replacement in the follow up of patients receiving the product for at least 12 months in the pivotal trials. The safety of the drug was good in clinical trials and in the postmarketing surveillance. Crystalline glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg once daily is therefore recommended in the majority of clinical practice guidelines and was found to be cost effective in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Compared with other glucosamine formulations, salts, or dosage forms, the prescription product achieves higher plasma and synovial fluid concentrations that are above the threshold for a pharmacologically relevant effect, and may therefore justify its distinct therapeutic characteristics.

Crystalline glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of osteoarthritis: evidence of long-term cardiovascular safety from clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Glucosamine is a safe and common treatment for osteoarthritis. Even so, literature data on the cardiovascular safety of glucosamine are limited. The objective of this paper is to investigate the long-term effects of crystalline glucosamine sulfate (CGS) on key measures of cardiovascular risk in patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: We analyzed safety data from two long-term (6-month and 3-year, respectively) randomized controlled trials of CGS. Mean changes in blood pressure, lipids, and glucose were calculated for all patients randomized to CGS or placebo in either study and for subgroups with abnormally elevated baseline values. Shift tables were used to analyze transitions from normal to abnormal levels, or vice versa. RESULTS: This analysis on 428 osteoarthritis patients includes data from subjects who had, on average, high normal blood pressure or high cholesterol at baseline. There were no significant changes in mean blood pressure after 6 months on CGS (systolic: -5±15 mmHg; diastolic: -5±10 mmHg) or placebo (systolic: -7±14 mmHg; diastolic: -4±10 mmHg). Subgroup analysis did not show significant effects in subjects with hypertension. Likewise, blood lipids (total/LDL cholesterol) and blood glucose did not change over 3 years and 6 months of treatment, respectively, even in hypercholesterolemic or hyperglycemic subjects. The proportions of patients whose blood pressure or cholesterol levels shifted from normal to abnormal, or vice versa, were comparable in the CGS and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of CGS did not affect blood pressure, lipids, or glucose in patients with osteoarthritis. These findings further support the cardiovascular safety of CGS.

Economic Evaluation of a New Antiemetic Drug - Palonosetron versus Ondansetron : Assessment of the Drug Price Ratio in Five European Countries.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify, measure and evaluate expected costs of innovative palonosetron-based antiemetic therapy versus ondansetron-based treatment, the ultimate aim being to measure the drug price ratio (DPR) of the two pharmacological treatments in five different European countries. METHODS: A decision model compared two antiemetic treatments - palonosetron and ondansetron - in terms of expected costs of emesis management from a hospital perspective. The model was compiled for 374 patients. The clinical superiority of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed emesis, measured in terms of: (i) complete response rates, (ii) number of emetic episodes, and (iii) administration of rescue medication, was derived from a previously published clinical trial. The cost data were gathered through economic questionnaires distributed in 11 European hospital centres. The expected costs of emesis management with palonosetron and ondansetron at ondansetron prices were used to calculate the DPR for palonosetron in each of the five European countries. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, DPR varied from 1.55 (in Russia) to 2.60 (in the UK). The sensitivity analysis of the unit costs of emetic episodes and rescue medication identified a range from 1.39 (in Germany) to 4.09 (in Russia). Even in the least favourable clinical scenario, palonosetron was a preferred antiemetic strategy with a DPR >1 in all five countries. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first economic evaluation analysis of palonosetron. The results demonstrate that palonosetron, because of its superior clinical efficacy in controlling emesis, could have a favourable DPR when compared with ondansetron in all five countries considered and still offer lower or equal net treatment costs for the hospital.