An expanded access protocol of RT001 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-Initial experience with a lipid peroxidation inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Lipid peroxidation is thought to play a biologically important role in motor neuron death in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 11,11 Di-deuterated linoleic ethyl ester (RT001) prevents lipid peroxidation in cellular and mitochondrial membranes. Herein we report on the use of RT001 under expanded access (EA). METHODS: We provided RT001 to patients with ALS via EA at a single site. The starting dose was 2.88 g/day, which was increased to to 8.64 g/day as tolerated. Participants were not eligible for alternative clinical trials. Participants were followed for adverse events and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were measured approximately 3 months after RT001 initiation. RESULTS: Sixteen participants received RT001 (5.6 ± 1.6 g/day; dose range, 1.92 to 8.64 g/day) for a mean period of 10.8 ± 7.1 months. After 3 months of treatment, PK studies showed that RT001 was absorbed, metabolized, and incorporated into red blood cell membranes at concentrations expected to be therapeutic based on in vitro models. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, which occurred in 25% of the participants, and were considered possibly related to RT001. One participant (6%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Ten serious adverse events occurred: these events were recognized complications of ALS and none were attributed to treatment with RT001. DISCUSSION: RT001 was administered safely to a small group of people living with ALS in the context of an EA protocol. Currently, there is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, controlled study of RT001 in ALS.

RT001 in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy-Clinical and In-Vitro Observations.

BACKGROUND: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a progressive movement disorder associated with lipid peroxidation and intracerebral accumulation of tau. RT001 is a deuterium reinforced isotopologue of linoleic acid that prevents lipid peroxidation (LPO) through the kinetic isotope effect. METHODS: The effects of RT001 pre-treatment on various oxidative and bioenergetic parameters were evaluated in mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) derived from patients with PSP compared to controls. In parallel, 3 patients with PSP were treated with RT001 and followed clinically. RESULTS: MSCs derived from PSP patients had a significantly higher rate of LPO (161.8 ± 8.2% of control; p < 0.001). A 72-h incubation with RT001 restored the PSP MSCs to normal levels. Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) overproduction in PSP-MSCs significantly decreased the level of GSH compared to control MSCs (to 56% and 47% of control; p < 0.05). Incubation with RT001 significantly increased level of GSH in PSP MSCs. The level of mitochondrial DNA in the cells was significantly lower in PSP-MSCs (67.5%), compared to control MSCs. Changes in mitochondrial membrane potential, size, and shape were also observed. Three subjects with possible or probable PSP were treated with RT001 for a mean duration of 26 months. The slope of the PSPRS changed from the historical decline of 0.91 points/month to a mean decline of 0.16 points/month (+/-0.23 SEM). The UPDRS slope changed from an expected increase of 0.95 points/month to an average increase in score of 0.28 points/month (+/-0.41 SEM). CONCLUSIONS: MSCs derived from patients with PSP have elevated basal levels of LPO, ROS, and mitochondrial dysfunction. These findings are reversed after incubation with RT001. In PSP patients, the progression of disease may be reduced by treatment with RT001.

Electrophysiological and ECG Effects of Perhexiline, a Mixed Cardiac Ion Channel Inhibitor, Evaluated in Nonclinical Assays and in Healthy Subjects.

Perhexiline has been used to treat hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In addition to its effect on carnitine-palmitoyltransferase-1, it has mixed ion channel effects through inhibition of several cardiac ion currents. Effects on cardiac ion channels expressed in mammalian cells were assayed using a manual patch-clamp technique, action potential duration (APD) was measured in ventricular trabeculae of human donor hearts, and electrocardiogram effects were evaluated in healthy subjects in a thorough QT (TQT) study. Perhexiline blocked several cardiac ion currents at concentrations within the therapeutic range (150-600 ng/mL) with IC50 for hCav1.2 ∼ hERG < late hNav1.5. A significant APD shortening was observed in perhexiline-treated cardiomyocytes. The TQT study was conducted with a pilot part in 9 subjects to evaluate a dosing schedule that would achieve therapeutic and supratherapeutic perhexiline plasma concentrations on days 4 and 6, respectively. Guided by the results from the pilot, 104 subjects were enrolled in a parallel-designed part with a nested crossover comparison for the positive control. Perhexiline caused QTc prolongation, with the largest effect on ΔΔQTcF, 14.7 milliseconds at therapeutic concentrations and 25.6 milliseconds at supratherapeutic concentrations and a positive and statistically significant slope of the concentration-ΔΔQTcF relationship (0.018 milliseconds per ng/mL; 90%CI, 0.0119-0.0237 milliseconds per ng/mL). In contrast, the JTpeak interval was shortened with a negative concentration-JTpeak relationship, a pattern consistent with multichannel block. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this results in a low proarrhythmic risk.

Pharmacokinetics of Tecarfarin and Warfarin in Patients with Severe Chronic Kidney Disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) complicates warfarin anticoagulation partially through its effect on CYP2C9 activity. Tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K antagonist, is not metabolized by CYP2C9. To evaluate the effect of CKD on their metabolism, we measured PK parameters of warfarin and tecarfarin in subjects with and without CKD. CKD subjects with estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min not on dialysis (n = 13) were matched to healthy volunteers (HVs) (n = 10). Each subject was randomized to either warfarin 10 mg or tecarfarin 30 mg and was later crossed over to the other drug. PK parameters were measured following each drug. Mean plasma concentrations of (S)-warfarin and (R,S)-warfarin were higher (44 and 27%, respectively) in the subjects with CKD than in the healthy subjects. Both of these values fell outside of the 90% confidence interval of equivalence. For tecarfarin, the difference was less than 15% higher. Elimination half-life (t1/2) increased by 20% for (S)-warfarin and by 8% for (R,S)-warfarin and decreased by 8% for tecarfarin. The mean plasma concentration for tecarfarin's inactive metabolite ATI-5900 increased by approximately eightfold. CKD increased the effect of CYP2C9 genetic variation on (S)-warfarin and (R,S)-warfarin metabolism. Tecarfarin exposure was similar between the HVs and the CKD subjects regardless of CYP2C9 genotype. There were neither serious adverse events (SAEs) nor treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for any subject in the study. CKD inhibits metabolism of (S)-warfarin and (R,S)-warfarin, but not tecarfarin. The safety of repeated dosing of tecarfarin in CKD patients remains unknown. However, if the PK findings of this single-dose study are present with repeated dosing, tecarfarin may lead to dosing that is more predictable than warfarin in CKD patients who require anticoagulation therapy.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant.

Tecarfarin is a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with reduced propensity for drug interactions. To evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and safety of tecarfarin, we performed single ascending dose (SAD) (n=66), multiple ascending dose (MAD) (n=43), and tecarfarin versus warfarin (n=28) studies in human volunteers. In the SAD, tecarfarin was administered to 5 of 6 subjects (1 received placebo) in each of 11 cohorts. AUC0-∞ exhibited linearity and dose proportionality. Elimination T1/2 ranged from 87-136 hours (h) across all doses. In the MAD, tecarfarin was administered to 5 of 6 volunteers in each of 7 cohorts. The starting dose was continued until the subject's INR reached the target range (TR) of 1.7 to 2.0. Dosing was down-titrated if the TR was achieved. Elimination T1/2 ranged from 107-140 h. Doses <10 mg had insignificant effect on INR. Higher doses raised INRs and required down-titration to maintain the TR. Steady state INR dosing was 10-20 mg. INR declined promptly after discontinuation. In the comparative study, subjects received tecarfarin or warfarin and dose titrated to a TR of 1.5-2.0. Mean dose after TR was achieved was 13.9 mg (range 10.0-25.5 mg) for tecarfarin and 5.3 mg (range 2.5-9.0 mg) for warfarin. At similar INR levels, the concentration of coagulation factors II, VII, IX, and X were similar for tecarfarin and warfarin. Tecarfarin was tolerated well without serious adverse events in all three studies.

A randomised, double blind comparison of tecarfarin, a novel vitamin K antagonist, with warfarin. The EmbraceAC Trial.

Tecarfarin is a novel vitamin K antagonist that is metabolised by carboxyl estererase, thereby eliminating the variability associated with cytochrome-mediated metabolism. EmbraceAC was designed to compare the quality of anticoagulation with tecarfarin and warfarin as determined by time in therapeutic range (TTR). In this phase 2/3 randomised and blinded trial, 607 patients with indications for chronic anticoagulation were assigned to warfarin (n=304) or tecarfarin (n=303). Dosing of study drugs was managed by a centralised dose control centre, which had access to genotyping. The primary analysis tested superiority of tecarfarin over warfarin for TTR. Patients were recruited between May 12, 2008 and May 12, 2009. TTR with tecarfarin and warfarin were similar (72.3 % and 71.5 %, respectively; p=0.51). In those taking CYP2C9 interacting drugs, the TTR on tecarfarin (n=92) was similar to that on warfarin (n=87, 72.2 % and 69.9 %, respectively; p=0.15). In patients with mechanical heart valves, the TTR of tecarfarin (n=42) was similar to that of warfarin (n=42, 68.4 % and 66.3 %, respectively; p=0.51). The same was true for the TTR in patients with any CYP2C9 variant allele and on CYP2C9-interacting drugs (tecarfarin, n=24, 76.5 % vs warfarin, n=31, 69.5 %; p=0.09). There was no difference in thromboembolic or bleeding events. In conclusion, superiority of tecarfarin over warfarin for TTR was not demonstrated. The TTR with tecarfarin was similar to that with well-controlled warfarin and tecarfarin appeared to be safe and well tolerated with few major bleeding and no thrombotic events. Favourable trends in certain subpopulations make tecarfarin a promising oral anticoagulant that deserves further study.

A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial comparing the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo lesions in coronary arteries: final results of the ZoMaxx II trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx™) with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus™ Express(2)™) in patients with angina pectoris and a single native coronary artery lesion between 10-28 mm in length and 2.5-3.75mm in diameter. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 75 international institutions between June 2005 and November 2006. RESULTS: 1099 (1672 originally planned) patients received 557 ZoMaxx and 542 Taxus stents: cohorts were well-matched for diabetes (27% vs. 27%), reference vessel diameter (2.73 ± 0.46mm vs. 2.74 ± 0.45mm) and lesion length (14.8 ± 6.7mm vs. 14.3 ± 6.4mm). Nine month clinical and angiographic follow-up was available in 1052/1099 (96%) and 649/836 (78%) patients, respectively. The safety profiles for the two stents (myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and/or target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were similar (ZoMaxx 8.7% vs. Taxus 6.9%, p=NS). The primary endpoint of 9-month TVR occurred more frequently after treatment with ZoMaxx (6.8%) as compared with Taxus (4.2%), therefore the primary clinical endpoint was not met. However, the 9-month in-segment late lumen loss for ZoMaxx (0.29 ± 0.47mm) and Taxus (0.22 ± 0.41mm, p=NS) were similar, thus satisfying the primary angiographic endpoint. Secondary endpoints of the rates of in-segment and in-stent binary restenosis were also similar (5.9% vs. 5.8%, 7.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: At 9months, the ZoMaxx stent failed to achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in TVR to the Taxus stent, but safety endpoints were equal between the two stent systems.

Clinical outcomes comparing eptifibatide and abciximab in ST elevation acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials comparing glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors have largely excluded patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: We conducted an open-label, sequential comparison of in-hospital and 6-month clinical outcomes in STEMI patients receiving eptifibatide or abciximab as adjunctive therapy during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Registry data were collected and compared for STEMI patients undergoing PCI and receiving eptifibatide or abciximab over a 3.5-year period. Six-month follow-up, using telephone interviews, included major adverse cardiac events and functional status. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for patients receiving eptifibatide (n = 294) or abciximab (n = 158). No significant differences in hospital clinical outcomes were observed for reinfarction (2 vs. 3% for eptifibatide and abciximab, respectively), repeat revascularization (3 vs. 4%), bleeding complications (8 vs. 12%), congestive heart failure (5 vs. 3%), cerebrovascular accidents (0 vs. 2%), renal failure (2 vs. 3%), and all-cause mortality at discharge (5 vs. 4%). No significant difference was seen between groups in all-cause mortality at 6 months (6.5 vs. 6.4%; hazard ratio 0.976; 95% confidence interval 0.43-2.23; log-rank, p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between STEMI patients receiving eptifibatide or abciximab in the setting of PCI. Considering the substantially lower cost of eptifibatide, these data suggest that eptifibatide can be substituted for abciximab to lower overall medication costs while maintaining beneficial safety and efficacy effects.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with native coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This trial examined the relative clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents (ZES) with a phosphorylcholine polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). BACKGROUND: Whether a cobalt-based alloy stent coated with the novel antiproliferative agent, zotarolimus, and a phosphorylcholine polymer may provide similar angiographic and clinical benefit compared with SES is undetermined. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, 3:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ZES (n = 323) relative to SES (n = 113) in 436 patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization of de novo native coronary lesions with reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm and lesion length > or =14 mm and < or =27 mm. The primary end point was 8-month angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. RESULTS: Angiographic in-segment late lumen loss was significantly higher among patients treated with ZES compared with SES (0.34 +/- 0.44 mm vs. 0.13 +/- 0.32 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly lower among patients treated with ZES (0.6% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.04). In-segment binary angiographic restenosis was also higher in the ZES cohort (11.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.04). Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9.8% and 3.5% for the ZES and SES groups, respectively (p = 0.04). However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.5% sirolimus, p = 0.34) nor target vessel failure (12.0% zotarolimus vs. 11.5% sirolimus, p = 1.0) differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SES, treatment with a phosphorylcholine polymer-based ZES is associated with significantly higher late lumen loss and binary restenosis at 8-month angiographic follow-up. (The Endeavor III CR; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00265668?order=1?).

Gender-based outcomes after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether gender influences the results of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation. BACKGROUND: The TAXUS-IV trial demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing elective coronary intervention. Whether these results are generalizable to women is not known. METHODS: A total of 1,314 patients with coronary lesions 10- to 28-mm long in 2.5- to 3.75-mm vessels were randomized to TAXUS stent versus bare-metal EXPRESS stents (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts). Outcomes examined were stratified by gender. RESULTS: A total of 662 patients (including 187 women) were assigned to the TAXUS stent, and 652 (180 women) received the control stent. Women were older than men, and had more hypertension, diabetes, renal insufficiency, unstable angina, and heart failure, but less smoking. Among patients receiving the TAXUS stent, women compared with men had higher unadjusted one-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.6% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.03), though female gender was not an independent predictor of TLR (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 4.37], p = 0.25). Moreover, restenosis rates were similar in men and women treated with the TAXUS stent (8.6% vs. 7.6%, respectively, p = 0.80), as was late loss (0.22 vs. 0.23 mm, p = 0.90). Compared to control stents, treatment with the TAXUS stent in women resulted in a significant reduction in nine-month restenosis (8.6% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.0001) and one-year TLR (7.6% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.02). The only independent predictor of freedom from restenosis in women was randomization to the TAXUS stent (OR = 0.28 [95% CI 0.11 to 0.74], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of the paclitaxel-eluting stent in reducing clinical and angiographic restenosis are generalizable to women.

Absence of interaction between atorvastatin or other statins and clopidogrel: results from the interaction study.

BACKGROUND: Some, but not all, post hoc analyses have suggested that the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel are inhibited by atorvastatin. We sought to address this issue prospectively by performing serial measurements of 19 platelet characteristics using conventional aggregometry, rapid analyzers, and flow cytometry. METHODS: The Interaction of Atorvastatin and Clopidogrel Study (Interaction Study) was designed for patients undergoing coronary stenting. All patients (n = 75) received 325 mg of aspirin daily for at least 1 week and 300 mg of clopidogrel immediately prior to stent implantation. They had been taking atorvastatin (n = 25), any other statin (n = 25), or no statin (n = 25) for at least 30 days prior to stenting. The main outcome measure was comparison of platelet biomarkers 4 and 24 hours after clopidogrel administration between study groups. RESULTS: At baseline, patients from both statin groups exhibited diminished platelet aggregation and reduced platelet expression of G-protein-coupled protease-activated thrombin receptor (PAR)-1. There were no significant differences in measured platelet characteristics among the study groups 4 and 24 hours after clopidogrel intake, with the exception of a lower collagen-induced aggregation at 24 hours and a constantly diminished expression of PAR-1 in patients treated with any statin. CONCLUSIONS: Statins in general, and atorvastatin in particular, do not affect the ability of clopidogrel to inhibit platelet function in patients undergoing coronary stenting. These prospective data also suggest that statins may inhibit platelets directly via yet unknown mechanism(s) possibly related to the regulation of the PAR-1 thrombin receptors.

Usefulness of a cobalt chromium coronary stent alloy.

The cobalt chromium Guidant Multi-Link Vision coronary stent was deployed in 267 patients as part of a multicenter international registry. Major adverse cardiovascular events were infrequent, and late (180 days) quantitative angiography demonstrated binary (>50%) in-stent restenosis in 15.7% of patients. This registry establishes the safety and efficacy of this alloy as a coronary stent platform.

A randomized multicenter trial comparing a new, low-pressure versus a conventional coronary stent: primary results from the CONSERVE trial.

Because it is uncertain whether high-pressure stent deployment may contribute to more exuberant neointimal proliferation, a new stent, the LP , was constructed to allow full expansion at 10 atmospheres (atm). We compared in a randomized trial the 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) and other clinical outcomes of the LP stent with the most commonly used Food and Drug Administration-approved stent (Guidant Duett and Tristar stents) in 1,003 patients without a recent myocardial infarction. The first 150 patients assigned the LP stent also underwent repeat angiography at 6 months. Baseline characteristics for the two groups were balanced, except for an excess of unstable angina in the LP group. There was slight excess in failure to deliver the LP stent (3.4% versus 1.4%; p = 0.04), and similar 7-day rates of procedural success without ischemic complications (92% versus 93%; p = 0.53). More patients in the LP group had pre-dilation (72% versus 58%; p < 0.001) and post-dilatation (61% versus 50%; p = 0.001). The stent deployment pressure was significantly lower, as expected, in the LP group (10 2 ATM versus 13 4 atm; p < 0.001). At 30 days, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was similar. At 6 months, the incidence of TVR was 10% and 7.8%, respectively (p = 0.28), hazard ratio was 0.79 (0.52 1.21), and absolute difference was 2.2% (-2.3% to 6.7%), well within the range of equivalency set at 7.5%. Patients without post-dilatation had a significantly higher rate of revascularization with the LP stent than with the Guidant stent (p = 0.02). Thus, the new LP stent achieves rates of revascularization that are not inferior to the Guidant stent, but this effect cannot be linked to lower-pressure deployment.