A Phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of PF-06835375, a C-X-C chemokine receptor type 5 directed antibody, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF­06835375, a potent selective afucosyl immunoglobulin G1 antibody targeting C-X-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CXCR5) that potentially depletes B cells, follicular T helper (Tfh) cells, and circulating Tfh-like (cTfh) cells, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This first-in-human, multicenter, double-blind, sponsor-open, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study recruited patients aged 18-70 years with SLE or RA. In Part A, patients received single doses of intravenous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.03-6 mg) or placebo in six sequential single ascending dose (SAD) cohorts. In Part B, patients received repeat doses of subcutaneous PF-06835375 (dose range: 0.3-10 mg) or placebo on Days 1 and 29 in five multiple ascending dose (MAD) cohorts. Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td) and Meningococcal B (MenB/Trumenba™) vaccines were administered at Day 4 (Td and MenB) and Week 8 (MenB only) to assess PF-06835375 functional effects. Endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), pharmacokinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic effects on B and cTfh cells, and biomarker counts, vaccine response, and exploratory differential gene expression analysis. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints are summarized descriptively. The change from baseline of B and Tfh cell-specific genes over time was calculated using a prespecified mixed-effects model, with a false discovery rate < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 73 patients were treated (SAD cohorts: SLE, n = 17; RA, n = 14; MAD cohorts: SLE, n = 22; RA, n = 20). Mean age was 53.3 years. Sixty-two (84.9%) patients experienced TEAEs (placebo n = 17; PF-06835375 n = 45); most were mild or moderate. Three (9.7%) patients experienced serious adverse events. Mean t1/2 ranged from 3.4-121.4 h (SAD cohorts) and 162.0-234.0 h (MAD cohorts, Day 29). B and cTfh cell counts generally showed dose-dependent reductions across cohorts (range of mean maximum depletion: 67.3-99.3%/62.4-98.7% [SAD] and 91.1-99.6%/89.5-98.1% [MAD], respectively). B cell-related genes and pathways were significantly downregulated in patients treated with PF-06835375. CONCLUSIONS: These data support further development of PF-06835375 to assess the clinical potential for B and Tfh cell depletion as a treatment for autoimmune diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334851.

Phase 2 study of the efficacy and safety of ponsegromab in patients with cancer cachexia: PROACC-1 study design.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial metabolic wasting syndrome characterized by anorexia, unintentional loss of weight involving both skeletal muscle and adipose tissues, progressive functional impairment and reduced survival. Therapeutic strategies for this serious condition are very limited. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a cytokine that is implicated in cancer cachexia and may represent both a biomarker of cancer cachexia and a potential therapeutic target. Ponsegromab is a potent and selective humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits GDF-15-mediated signalling. Preclinical and preliminary phase 1 data suggest that ponsegromab-mediated inactivation of circulating GDF-15 may lead to improvement in key characteristics of cachexia. The primary objective of this phase 2 study is to assess the effect of ponsegromab on body weight in patients with cancer, cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations. Secondary objectives include assessing physical activity, physical function, actigraphy, appetite, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and safety. Exploratory objectives include evaluating pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, lumbar skeletal muscle index and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. METHODS: Approximately 168 adults with non-small-cell lung, pancreatic or colorectal cancers who have cachexia and elevated GDF-15 concentrations will be randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT05546476). Participants meeting eligibility criteria will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of three dose groups of ponsegromab (100, 200 or 400 mg) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for an initial 12-week treatment period. This is followed by optional open-label treatment with ponsegromab of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint is mean change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. A mixed model for repeated measures followed by a Bayesian Emax model will be used for the primary analysis. Secondary endpoints include physical activity, physical function and actigraphy measured by remote digital sensors; patient-reported appetite-related symptoms assessed by Functional Assessment of Anorexia-Cachexia Therapy subscale scores; anorexia/appetite, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue evaluated according to questions from the Cancer-Related Cachexia Symptom Diary; and incidence of adverse events, safety laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiogram abnormalities. PERSPECTIVE: Cancer-related cachexia is an area of significant unmet medical need. This study will support the clinical development of ponsegromab as a novel inhibitor of GDF-15, which may ameliorate key pathologies of cancer cachexia to improve patient symptoms, functionality and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05546476.

A Phase Ib First-In-Patient Study Assessing the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Ponsegromab in Participants with Cancer and Cachexia.

PURPOSE: Cachexia is common in patients with advanced cancer and is associated with elevated serum growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) concentrations. This first-in-patient (phase Ib), 24-week study assessed use of ponsegromab, a mAb against GDF-15, in adults with advanced cancer, cachexia, and elevated GDF-15 serum concentration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants (n = 10) received open-label ponsegromab subcutaneous 200 mg every 3 weeks for 12 weeks in addition to standard-of-care anticancer treatment. Ponsegromab safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics were assessed in addition to serum GDF-15 concentrations and exploratory measures of efficacy. RESULTS: No treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events, injection site reactions, or adverse trends in clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, or electrocardiogram parameters attributable to ponsegromab were identified. Median serum unbound GDF-15 concentration at baseline was 2.269 ng/mL. Following initiation of study treatment, median unbound GDF-15 concentrations were below the lower limit of quantification (0.0424 ng/mL) from day 1 (3 hours postdose) through week 15. Increases in body weight were observed at all time points during the treatment and follow-up periods. A least-squares mean (SE) increase of 4.63 (1.98) kg was observed at week 12, an increase of approximately 6.6% relative to baseline. Ponsegromab-mediated improvements in actigraphy-based assessments of physical activity and in quality of life, including appetite as assessed by Functional Assessment of Anorexia-Cachexia Therapy total and subscale scores, were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ponsegromab was well tolerated, suppressed serum GDF-15 concentrations, and demonstrated preliminary evidence of efficacy. These findings support the continued development of ponsegromab for the treatment of cachexia.

Diagnosis and Treatment Options for Preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objective: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), classifies attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a neurodevelopmental disorder, with symptoms becoming apparent as early as the preschool years. Early recognition can lead to interventions such as parent/teacher-administered behavior therapy, the recommended first-line treatment for preschool patients. There are few data, however, to inform the use of second-line, pharmacotherapy options in this population. In this review, we identified recent literature on the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in preschool children. Methods: A PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov search was conducted for trials assessing efficacy or safety of ADHD medications in children aged <6 years. Diagnostic methods and criteria focusing on recognition of ADHD in preschool children were also surveyed. Results: The DSM-5 describes different manifestations of ADHD in preschool versus school-aged children, but does not list separate criteria by age group. Importantly, behaviors indicative of ADHD in older children may be developmentally appropriate in preschool children. Several behavioral rating scales have been validated in children younger than 6 years of age for assessing ADHD. The Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) has provided the most extensive efficacy and safety data on methylphenidate (MPH) for ADHD in preschoolers to date, with significant improvement in ADHD symptoms observed with MPH compared with placebo, although adverse event-related discontinuation was higher in PATS compared with studies of MPH for ADHD in school-aged children. Since PATS was conducted, few studies designed to assess ADHD medication effectiveness in preschool children have been published. One article reported significant improvement in ADHD symptoms with MPH (immediate release) versus placebo, two studies showed no difference between MPH and risperidone or MPH plus risperidone in relief of ADHD symptoms, and one study demonstrated the efficacy of atomoxetine versus placebo for ADHD symptoms in preschoolers. Conclusions: Further research is needed on pharmacotherapy for preschool children with ADHD.

Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Outpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, low exposure desvenlafaxine (20, 30, or 35 mg/day based on baseline weight), or higher exposure desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/day based on baseline weight). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy assessments included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scales. Safety assessments included adverse events and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. RESULTS: The safety population included 363 patients (children, n = 109; adolescents, n = 254). No statistical separation from placebo was observed for either desvenlafaxine group for CDRS-R total score or for any secondary efficacy endpoint. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) changes from baseline in CDRS-R total score for the desvenlafaxine low exposure, desvenlafaxine high exposure, and placebo groups were -23.7 (1.1), -24.4 (1.1), and -22.9 (1.1), respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Low and high exposure desvenlafaxine groups did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment of MDD in children and adolescents in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Desvenlafaxine (20-50 mg/day) was generally safe and well tolerated with no new safety signals identified in pediatric patients with MDD in this study.

Open-label, 2-period sequential drug interaction study to evaluate the effect of a 100-mg dose of desvenlafaxine on the pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen when coadministered in healthy postmenopausal female subjects.

BACKGROUND: Potential drugdrug interactions are a concern for patients taking tamoxifen. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the effect of coadministering desvenlafaxine on tamoxifen pharmacokinetics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, 2-period inpatient and outpatient study enrolled healthy, postmenopausal women. Period 1, day 1, subjects were administered tamoxifen 40 mg followed by 23 days of blood sampling for pharmacokinetic analyses. During period 2, subjects received desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d for 28 days; a single dose of tamoxifen 40 mg was administered with desvenlafaxine 100 mg on day 7, followed by 23 days of blood sampling. Pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen and its metabolites (AUC over infinite time (AUC(inf)), AUC to the last measurable concentration (AUC(last)), peak plasma concentration (C(max)) were compared for monotherapy vs. combination therapy using the ratio of adjusted mean differences. A superposition method was used in the statistical analysis of N-desmethyl-tamoxifen and endoxifen to address the carry-over observed for those metabolites. The test for interaction was considered negative if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios were within 80 - 125%. RESULTS: Coadministration of tamoxifen with steady-state desvenlafaxine did not alter tamoxifen AUC(inf), AUC(last), and C(max), as reflected by the ratio of adjusted geometric means (90% CIs) of 100.7% (96.7%, 104.9%), 103.5% (100.2%, 106.9%), and 99.4% (94.0%, 105.2%), respectively. Similarly, coadministration did not alter 4-hydroxy- tamoxifen and N-desmethyl-amoxifen pharmacokinetics. The 11.8% (88.2% (82.6%, 94.2%)) and 8.0% (92.0% (84.7%, 100.0%)) decreases in endoxifen AUC(last) and C(max), respectively, were not significant (90% CIs fell wholly within the prespecified acceptance range). CONCLUSIONS: Steady-state desvenlafaxine 100 mg did not affect tamoxifen pharmacokinetics. For women treated with tamoxifen, desvenlafaxine may represent a safe and effective treatment unlikely to alter tamoxifen efficacy.

Real-world disparities between patient- and clinician-reported outcomes: results from a disease-specific program in depression and anxiety.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify potential discordance between physician and patient rated measures of depression used by primary care physicians and psychiatrists. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: This study collected data from primary care physicians and psychiatrists in the United States between October and December 2009. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A real-world, cross-sectional study was conducted using the Neuroses Disease-Specific Programme (Adelphi Real World, Macclesfield, United Kingdom). Treatment practice data were collected by 180 physicians (100 primary care and 80 psychiatrists) who were asked to provide information for the next 15 outpatients presenting prospectively with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression (n = 2,704 patients). The primary outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scales, completed by both physicians and their matched patients, respectively. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scale responses. RESULTS: Physician- and patient-rated overall improvement in illness was 82% and 89%, respectively. Results of the kappa analysis demonstrated fair agreement between patients and physicians regarding overall improvement in illness (44% agreement; κ= 0.23). Physician ratings of patient improvement progressively decreased with increased severity of illness. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: These real-world data suggest that the degree of reduction in symptoms of anxiety and/or depression may be estimated differently by physicians when compared with their patients. Understanding the potential for disparities between physician- and patient-rated measures in reviewing patient care, particularly in patients with more severe depressive symptoms, can help ensure that treatment plans are aligned with patient needs.

Symptomatic and functional improvement in employed depressed patients: a double-blind clinical trial of desvenlafaxine versus placebo.

OBJECTIVE: This is the first study to assess the efficacy of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for improving depressive symptoms and functioning exclusively in employed patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Gainfully employed (≥20 h/wk) male and female outpatients with MDD were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo. Analysis of covariance was used to compare differences in week 12 adjusted mean changes from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) (primary outcome) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) (key secondary outcome) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. A predefined, modified ITT population (ie, those in the ITT population with baseline HAM-D17 ≥20) was also analyzed. Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events and change on the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. RESULTS: Baseline HAM-D17 scores for desvenlafaxine (n = 285) and placebo (n = 142) were 22.0 and 21.8, whereas baseline SDS scores were 19.8 and 20.4. Adjusted mean differences between desvenlafaxine and placebo were 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-3.46; P = 0.002) on the HAM-D17 and 1.3 (95% CI, -0.09 to 2.76; P = 0.067) on the SDS. For the modified ITT sample, desvenlafaxine (n = 208) and placebo (n = 102), baseline HAM-D17 scores were 23.8 and 23.9; the SDS baseline scores were 20.1 and 20.8. Mean differences were 2.6 (95% CI, 0.93-4.22; P = 0.002) on the HAM-D17 and 2.1 (95% CI, 0.36-3.76; P = 0.017) on the SDS. Adverse events and Arizona Sexual Experience Scale scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d was efficacious for treating MDD in gainfully employed adults. Between-group differences on the SDS narrowly missed statistical significance in the ITT population alone, but the totality of data suggests functional improvements with active treatment.