Clinical Trial Drug Safety Assessment for Studies and Submissions Impacted by COVID-19.

Abstract-In this article, we provide guidance on how safety analyses and reporting of clinical trial safety data may need to be modified, given potential impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Impact could include missed visits, alternative methods for assessments (such as virtual visits), alternative locations for assessments (such as local labs), and study drug interruptions. Starting from the safety analyses typically included in Clinical Study Reports for Phase 2-4 clinical trials and integrated submission documents, we assess what modifications might be needed. If the impact from COVID-19 affects treatment arms equally, analyses of adverse events from controlled data can, to a large extent, remain unchanged. However, interpretation of summaries from uncontrolled data (summaries that include open-label extension data) will require even more caution than usual. Special consideration will be needed for safety topics of interest, especially events expected to have a higher incidence due to a COVID-19 infection or due to quarantine or travel restrictions (e.g., depression). Analyses of laboratory measurements may need to be modified to account for the combination of measurements from local and central laboratories.

Adaptation of the robust method to large distributions of reference values: program modifications and comparison of alternative computational methods.

The objective of this research was to compute reference limits using reference values from patients entering pharmaceutical development clinical trials by the nonparametric method and the robust method of Horn and Pesce, with and without outlier exclusion, and compare the methods with respect to influence on the limits. Reference limits were computed for 38 analytes with over 130,000 subjects contributing reference values. Subjects were partitioned into 10 demographic strata for limit computation. Limits were computed for both 95- and 98-percentile reference intervals by both methods. For each reference interval and method, the limits were calculated with and without outliers. Outliers were excluded by the Horn algorithm. Irrespective of method, reference limits were expanded with the 98-percentile interval, but some expansions were small. Outlier exclusion contracted limits with more influence on the upper limit. The robust method contracted the upper limit to a meaningful degree and slightly expanded the lower limit for many analytes. Outlier exclusion and computation by the robust method have an increasing influence on analytes with right-skewed distributions of reference values from large populations not screened to exclude common, stable diseases and environmental factors that might affect analyte variability. The method has advantages for computation of reference limits used in clinical trial analyses.

Reference Limits for Outlier Analyses in Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Reference limits used in clinical medicine to screen and manage patients are typically developed nonparametrically using reference values from a limited number of healthy subjects using a 95th percentile reference interval. We have evaluated alternative methods of computation and the resulting limits for use in the analyses of treatment-emergent outliers in clinical trials. METHODS: We developed a set of alternative reference limits for 38 laboratory analytes based on alternative statistical methods and assessed their relative performance in clinical trial analysis. Performance assessment was based on the clinical credibility of the limits, inferential statistical performance, consideration of incidences for the test drug and control (placebo) in cases where the drug was reasonably believed to be associated with a change in an analyte (positive cases), and in cases where prior analyses failed to demonstrate a change associated with the drug (negative cases). RESULTS: Based on consideration of these cases, no single method resulted in optimal limits for all cases considered. However, with the limits developed using clinical trial subjects' values at baseline as reference values, excluding outliers, the robust method and the 98th percentile interval appeared to produce optimal limits across the greatest number of cases considered. CONCLUSION: Although no single method of limit computation will result in optimal limits for all outlier analyses for all analytes across all clinical trials, the 98th percentile reference interval robust limits based on clinical trial reference values appeared superior to multiple alternatives considered for such analyses.

Identifying potential adverse events dose-response relationships via Bayesian indirect and mixed treatment comparison models.

Patients and prescribers need to be fully informed regarding the safety profile of approved medications. This includes knowledge and information regarding whether an adverse event of interest exhibits a potential dose-response relationship. In order to thoroughly evaluate whether an adverse event rate increases with increasing dose level, evidence from multiple clinical trials needs to be combined and analyzed. The various clinical trials that need to be combined often include different dose levels. If one evaluates the dose-response relationship by including only the trials with all of the common dose levels, this will lead to the exclusion of potentially several clinical trials as well as dose levels, and thus the loss of important information. Other methods, such as crudely pooling patients on the same dose level across different studies, are subject to bias due to the breakdown of randomization. It is preferable to include all studies and relevant dose levels, even if all studies do not contain the same dose levels. Bayesian methodology has been shown to be useful in the context of indirect and mixed treatment comparison methods, to combine information from different therapies in different studies in order to make treatment effect inferences. This type of approach is foundational to the models presented here, but instead of modeling different dose arms in different studies, we extend the methodology to allow for assessment of the dose-response relationship across multiple clinical trials. In this paper, we propose three Bayesian indirect/mixed treatment comparison models to assess adverse event dose-response relationships. These three models are designed to handle binary responses and time to event responses. We apply the methods to real data sets and demonstrate that our proposed methods are useful in discovering potential dose-response relationships.

Novel role for proteinase-activated receptor 2 (PAR2) in membrane trafficking of proteinase-activated receptor 4 (PAR4).

Proteinase-activated receptors 4 (PAR(4)) is a class A G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) recognized through the ability of serine proteases such as thrombin and trypsin to mediate receptor activation. Due to the irreversible nature of activation, a fresh supply of receptor is required to be mobilized to the cell surface for responsiveness to agonist to be sustained. Unlike other PAR subtypes, the mechanisms regulating receptor trafficking of PAR(4) remain unknown. Here, we report novel features of the intracellular trafficking of PAR(4) to the plasma membrane. PAR(4) was poorly expressed at the plasma membrane and largely retained in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in a complex with the COPI protein subunit ß-COP1. Analysis of the PAR(4) protein sequence identified an arginine-based (RXR) ER retention sequence located within intracellular loop-2 (R(183)AR → A(183)AA), mutation of which allowed efficient membrane delivery of PAR(4). Interestingly, co-expression with PAR(2) facilitated plasma membrane delivery of PAR(4), an effect produced through disruption of ß-COP1 binding and facilitation of interaction with the chaperone protein 14-3-3ζ. Intermolecular FRET studies confirmed heterodimerization between PAR(2) and PAR(4). PAR(2) also enhanced glycosylation of PAR(4) and activation of PAR(4) signaling. Our results identify a novel regulatory role for PAR(2) in the anterograde traffic of PAR(4). PAR(2) was shown to both facilitate and abrogate protein interactions with PAR(4), impacting upon receptor localization and cell signal transduction. This work is likely to impact markedly upon the understanding of the receptor pharmacology of PAR(4) in normal physiology and disease.

Duloxetine treatment and glycemic controls in patients with diagnoses other than diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Mood disorders are often associated with poor glycemic control, and antidepressant treatments for mood and pain disorders can alter plasma glucose levels in patients with diabetes. A previous meta-analysis from three studies showed that duloxetine modestly increased fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c) levels in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). This meta-analysis examined whether there were any short- and long-term effects of duloxetine (20-120 mg/day) on glycemic control in patients with diagnoses other than DPNP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Short-term data (9-27 weeks): seven studies of duloxetine in general anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, and chronic lower back pain (CLBP). Long-term data: 41-week, uncontrolled extension of the short-term CLBP study and 52-week study in patients with recurrence of major depressive disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) levels. RESULTS: In short-term studies, patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 1098) or duloxetine (n = 1563). Mean baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) did not significantly differ in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. In the 41-week study (n = 181), duloxetine-treated patients experienced a small but significant within-group baseline-to-endpoint increase in HbA(1c) (mean change = 0.1%; p < 0.001). This result was in contrast to absence of effect on mean baseline-to-endpoint within-group changes in FPG (p = 0.326) in that study, and to absence of between-treatment changes in FPG (p = 0.744) and HbA(1c) (p = 0.180) in the 52-week placebo-controlled study. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine treatment did not significantly alter FPG and HbA(1c) levels compared with placebo treatment in the short-term studies. A small but statistically significant within-group increase in HbA(1c) was found in the 41-week study, but not in between-treatment group differences in the 52-week study. Neither of the long-term studies showed significant changes in the FPG levels. The small, non-reproducible HbA(1c) increase in one study of patients without DPNP may have resulted from patients with unrecognized diabetes in these trials.

Dual effect of the novel peptide antagonist K-14585 on proteinase-activated receptor-2-mediated signalling.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Here we have examined the effects of the novel peptide antagonist N-[1-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)methyl]-3-(1-pyrrolidinylmethyl)-1H-indol-5-yl]aminocarbonyl]-glycinyl-L-lysinyl-L-phenylalanyl-N-benzhydrylamide (K-14585) on proteinase-activated receptor (PAR)(2)-mediated intracellular signalling events. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Using NCTC2544 cells expressing PAR(2), we assessed the effects of K-14585 on PAR(2)-mediated [(3)H] inositol phosphate accumulation, MAP kinase activation, p65 NFkappaB phosphorylation and DNA binding and IL-8 production. KEY RESULTS: Pretreatment with K-14585 (5 microM) inhibited [(3)H] inositol phosphate levels stimulated by PAR(2)-activating peptide Ser-Leu-Ile-Gly-Lys-Val (SLIGKV-OH) in PAR(2)-expressing NCTC2544 cells. K-14585 pretreatment did not influence PAR(2)-mediated extracellular regulated kinase activation but inhibited p38 MAP kinase phosphorylation. At a higher concentration (30 microM), K-14585 alone stimulated p38 MAP kinase activation. These effects were replicated in EAhy926 cells, endogenously expressing PAR(2), but not in parental or PAR(4)-expressing NCTC2544 cells, suggesting these effects were PAR(2)-dependent. SLIGKV-mediated stimulation of p38 MAP kinase phosphorylation was substantially reduced by the G(q/11) inhibitor YM-254890, without affecting K-14585-mediated phosphorylation. Pretreatment with K-14585 inhibited PAR(2)-mediated p65 NFkappaB phosphorylation and NFkappaB-DNA binding. K-14585 (30 microM) alone stimulated comparable NFkappaB reporter activity to SLIGKV-OH. K-14585 inhibited SLIGKV-stimulated IL-8 production, but given alone increased IL-8. While SLIGKV-induced IL-8 formation was reduced by both SB203580 and YM-254890, the response to K-14585 was sensitive to SB203580 but not YM-254890. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These data reveal that K-14585 has a duality of action functioning both as an antagonist and agonist due to either partial agonist actions or possible agonist-directed signalling. The data also suggest two modes of p38 MAP kinase activation emanating from PAR(2), one G(q/11)-dependent and the other G(q/11)-independent.

G-protein-dependent and -independent pathways regulate proteinase-activated receptor-2 mediated p65 NFkappaB serine 536 phosphorylation in human keratinocytes.

The mechanisms underpinning the coupling of GPCRs, such as PAR-2, to the phosphorylation of p65 NFkappaB have not been investigated. In the current study we found that trypsin and the selective PAR-2 activating peptide, 2f-LIGKV-OH, stimulated large and sustained increases in the serine 536 phosphorylation of p65/RelA in a transfected skin epithelial cell line and primary keratinocytes. Parallel experiments showed that in both cell types, p65 NFkappaB phosphorylation is mediated through the selective activation of IKK2. Treatment with PKC inhibitor GF109203X or PKCalpha siRNA reduced phosphorylation at 15 min but not 30 min, whilst rottlerin, a selective PKCdelta inhibitor and PKCdelta siRNA reduced the response at both time points. Pre-treatment of cells with the novel Gq/11 inhibitor YM-254890 and Gq/11 siRNA caused a similar pattern of inhibition and also reduced PAR-2-mediated NFkappaB transcriptional activity. Furthermore, stimulation of cells through a novel PAR-2 mutant PAR-2(34-43), delayed p65 phosphorylation but was without effect on the kinetics of ERK activation. Inhibition of Gi or G12/13 pathways by pertussis toxin pre-treatment or over-expression of the RGS mutant Lsc, also did not effect NFkappaB phosphorylation. Taken together these data indicate dependency for Gq/11 in early phosphorylation of p65 NFkappaB and this subsequently affects initial NFkappaB-dependent gene transcriptional activity, however later regulation of p65 is unaffected. Overall these novel data demonstrate an IKK2-dependent, predominantly G-protein-independent pathway involved in PAR-2 regulation of NFkappaB phosphorylation in keratinocytes.

Fluoxetine and adult suicidality revisited: an updated meta-analysis using expanded data sources from placebo-controlled trials.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatments have been suggested by some to induce emergence of suicidality (ideation and behaviors). The objective of this study was to assess suicidality emergence by adverse event and rating scale data in the largest available, adult, major depression, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fluoxetine trial database (18 trials). Adverse event reports and comments for patients (fluoxetine, n = 2200; placebo, n = 1551) were searched for suicide-related events that were then classified into Food and Drug Administration categories. For 16 trials, suicidality was also examined by Hamilton Depression Scale item 3 (suicide) scores, and these data were analyzed along with the combination of event-based data and scale-based data. Comparisons between treatments were made for various estimates of worsening (risk) and improvement (benefit) of suicidality. Fluoxetine treatment did not result in greater worsening but was associated with greater improvement and faster resolution of ideation (P < or = 0.05 vs placebo). Data sources were differentially sensitive in detecting changes in suicidal ideation and behaviors. Fluoxetine treatment led to greater benefit rather than risk for suicidality.

Meta-analysis of aggression and/or hostility-related events in children and adolescents treated with fluoxetine compared with placebo.

This meta-analysis assessed aggression and/or hostility-related events in children and adolescents treated with fluoxetine (n = 376) compared with placebo (n = 255). Aggression and/or hostility-related events were identified in 2.1% of fluoxetine versus 3.1% of placebo-treated patients (p = 0.588). This analysis fails to support an association between fluoxetine treatment and increased risk of aggression and/or hostility-related events in children and adolescents compared with placebo.

An exploratory factor analysis of the children's depression rating scale-revised.

An exploratory factor analysis was performed in a clinical sample of 314 children and adolescents to investigate the factor structure of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; Poznanski et al. 1984). A maximum likelihood method followed by a Promax rotation yielded five factors: observed depressive mood, anhedonia, morbid thoughts, somatic symptoms and reported depressive mood. The age group and gender differences on the factors scores are evaluated. After controlling for gender, the adolescents had more severe depression in terms of observed depressive mood, anhedonia, and somatic symptoms. After controlling for age groups, girls had higher scores for reported depressive mood.

Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. METHODS: Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day was well tolerated.

Fluoxetine treatment for prevention of relapse of depression in children and adolescents: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day with placebo for prevention of relapse of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents who had achieved Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised scores of < or =28 during treatment with fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg. METHOD: In this 32-week relapse-prevention phase of a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled 51-week study, 20 patients continued to receive their fixed dose of fluoxetine (F/F group), while 20 similar patients were switched to placebo (F/P group). Definition of relapse for the primary analysis was a Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised score of >40 with a 2-week history of clinical deterioration or relapse in the opinion of the physician. Adverse events were compared between treatment groups to assess discontinuation-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Mean time to relapse was longer in the F/F recipients than in the F/P recipients (p=.046). Relapse occurred in an estimated 34% in the F/F cohort and 60% in the F/P cohort. Incidence of adverse events and tolerability were similar in the F/F and F/P groups, suggesting that fluoxetine is not associated with significant discontinuation events. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was well tolerated and can significantly delay relapse of major depressive disorder symptoms in children and adolescents.

Safety of subchronic treatment with fluoxetine for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of subchronic fluoxetine treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents. METHODS: Patients received up to 19 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine, 10 mg-60 mg daily. Safety was evaluated through the reporting of concomitant medications, vital signs, routine laboratory testing, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and adverse event data. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients, aged 9-17 years, completed 19 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 47). There were statistically significant differences between the fluoxetine and placebo groups in mean change from baseline for alkaline phosphatase and total cholesterol levels (p < 0.001, and p < 0.014, respectively), but there were no statistically significant differences between the incidence of abnormal laboratory values for these 2 analytes. Fluoxetine-treated patients gained statistically significantly less height (fluoxetine: 1.0 cm +/- 2.4; placebo: 2.1 cm +/- 2.6; p = 0.004) and weight (fluoxetine: 1.2 kg +/- 2.7; placebo: 2.3 kg +/- 2.6; p = 0.008) than placebo-treated patients during the 19 weeks of treatment. There was no difference in the rate of reported suicide-related events between fluoxetine and placebo. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was found to be safe and well tolerated in this study of children and adolescents with MDD. Clarification and determination of the clinical significance of the growth-rate reduction seen during fluoxetine treatment requires further investigation. During treatment with fluoxetine, the growth of child and adolescent patients should be monitored.

Fluoxetine for acute treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This report presents results from the acute treatment phase of a clinical trial designed to confirm efficacy of a fixed dose of 20 mg of fluoxetine in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: After a 3-week screening period, 122 children and 97 adolescents with MDD ( ) were randomly assigned to placebo or fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, fluoxetine-treated patients received fluoxetine 10 mg/day for 1 week, then fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was associated with greater mean improvement in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score than placebo after 1 week ( <.05) and throughout the study period. Significantly more fluoxetine-treated patients (41%) met the prospectively defined criteria for remission than did placebo-treated patients (20%) ( <.01). More fluoxetine- (65%) than placebo-treated (53%) patients met the prospectively defined response criterion of > or =30% decrease in CDRS-R score, but this difference was not significant ( =.093). Significantly more fluoxetine-than placebo-treated patients completed acute treatment ( =.001). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in discontinuations due to adverse events ( =.408). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily appears to be well tolerated and effective for acute treatment of MDD in child and adolescent outpatients. Fluoxetine is the only antidepressant that has demonstrated efficacy in two placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of pediatric depression.

Acute efficacy of fluoxetine versus sertraline and paroxetine in major depressive disorder including effects of baseline insomnia.

This study assessed whether fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine differ in efficacy and tolerability in depressed patients and the impact of baseline insomnia on outcomes. Patients (N = 284) with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline for 10 to 16 weeks of treatment. Using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) sleep disturbance factor score, patients were categorized into low (<4) or high (>or=4) baseline insomnia subgroups. Changes in depression and insomnia were assessed. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), reasons for discontinuation, and AEs leading to discontinuation. In addition, AEs were evaluated within insomnia subgroups to determine emergence of activation or sedation. Depression improvement, assessed with the HAM-D-17 total score, was similar among treatments in all patients (p = 0.365) and the high (p = 0.853) and low insomnia (p = 0.415) subgroups. Insomnia improvement, assessed with the HAM-D sleep disturbance factor score, was similar among treatments in all patients (p = 0.868) and in the high (p = 0.852) and low insomnia (p = 0.982) subgroups. Analyses revealed no significant differences between treatments in the percentages of patients with substantial worsening, any worsening, worsening at endpoint, or improvement at endpoint in the HAM-D sleep disturbance factor in either insomnia subgroup. Treatments were well tolerated in most patients. No significant differences between treatments in the incidence of AEs suggestive of activation or sedation were seen in the insomnia subgroups. These data show no significant differences in acute treatment efficacy and tolerability across fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine in major depressive disorder patients. Improvement in overall depression and in associated insomnia was achieved by most patients regardless of baseline insomnia.