Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Safety and efficacy of platelet glycoprotein VI inhibition in acute ischaemic stroke (ACTIMIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2a trial.

BACKGROUND: Antagonists of glycoprotein VI-triggered platelet activation used in combination with recanalisation therapies are a promising therapeutic approach in acute ischaemic stroke. Glenzocimab is an antibody fragment that inhibits the action of platelet glycoprotein VI. We aimed to determine and assess the safety and efficacy of the optimal dose of glenzocimab in patients with acute ischaemic stroke eligible to receive alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with dose-escalation (1b) and dose-confirmation (2a) phases (ACTIMIS) was done in 26 stroke centres in six European countries. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with disabling acute ischaemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6 or higher before alteplase administration. Patients were randomly assigned treatment using a central electronic procedure. Total administered dose at the end of the intravenous administration was 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 1b and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 2a. Treatment was initiated 4·5 h or earlier from stroke symptom onset in patients treated with alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. The sponsor, study investigator and study staff, patients, and central laboratories were all masked to study treatment until database lock. Primary endpoints across both phases were safety, mortality, and intracranial haemorrhage (symptomatic, total, and fatal), assessed in all patients who received at least a partial dose of study medication (safety set). The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03803007, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2019, and June 27, 2021, 60 recruited patients were randomly assigned to 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg glenzocimab, or to placebo in phase 1b (n=12 per group) and were included in the safety analysis. Glenzocimab 1000 mg was well tolerated and selected as the phase 2a recommended dose; from Oct 2, 2020, to June 27, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to glenzocimab 1000 mg (n=53) or placebo (n=53). One patient in the placebo group received glenzocimab in error and therefore 54 and 52, respectively, were included in the safety set. In phase 2a, the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was non-symptomatic haemorrhagic transformation, which occurred in 17 (31%) of 54 patients treated with glenzocimab and 26 (50%) of 52 patients treated with placebo. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in no patients treated with glenzocimab compared with five (10%) patients in the placebo group. All-cause deaths were lower with glenzocimab 1000 mg (four [7%] patients) than with placebo (11 [21%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Glenzocimab 1000 mg in addition to alteplase, with or without mechanical thrombectomy, was well tolerated, and might reduce serious adverse events, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality. These findings support the need for future research into the potential therapeutic inhibition of glycoprotein VI with glenzocimab plus alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. FUNDING: Acticor Biotech.

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and optimal biomarker enrichment strategy for nangibotide, a TREM-1 inhibitor, in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH): a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) pathway is associated with septic shock outcomes. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway in patients with activated TREM-1 might improve survival. Soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1), a potential mechanism-based biomarker, might facilitate enrichment of patient selection in clinical trials of nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator. In this phase 2b trial, we aimed to confirm the hypothesis that TREM1 inhibition might improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial assessed the efficacy and safety of two different doses of nangibotide compared with placebo, and aimed to identify the optimum treatment population, in patients across 42 hospitals with medical, surgical, or mixed intensive care units (ICUs) in seven countries. Non-COVID-19 patients (18-85 years) meeting the standard definition of septic shock, with documented or suspected infection (lung, abdominal, or urinary [in patients ≥65 years]), were eligible within 24 h of vasopressor initiation for the treatment of septic shock. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to intravenous nangibotide 0·3 mg/kg per h (low-dose group), nangibotide 1·0 mg/kg per h (high-dose group), or matched placebo, using a computer-generated block randomisation scheme (block size 3). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were grouped according to sTREM-1 concentrations at baseline (established from sepsis observational studies and from phase 2a change to data) into high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL). The primary outcome was the mean difference in total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from baseline to day 5 in the low-dose and high-dose groups compared with placebo, measured in the predefined high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL) population and in the overall modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included all-cause 28-day mortality, safety, pharmacokinetics, and evaluation of the relationship between TREM-1 activation and treatment response. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004827-36, and Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04055909. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2019, and April 11, 2022, of 402 patients screened, 355 were included in the main analysis (116 in the placebo group, 118 in the low-dose group, and 121 in the high-dose group). In the preliminary high sTREM-1 population (total 253 [71%] of 355; placebo 75 [65%] of 116; low-dose 90 [76%] of 118; high-dose 88 [73%] of 121), the mean difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 was 0·21 (95% CI -1·45 to 1·87, p=0·80) in the low-dose group and 1·39 (-0·28 to 3·06, p=0·104) in the high-dose group versus placebo. In the overall population, the difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 between the placebo group and low-dose group was 0·20 (-1·09 to 1·50; p=0·76),and between the placebo group and the high-dose group was 1·06 (-0·23 to 2·35, p=0·108). In the predefined high sTREM-1 cutoff population, 23 (31%) patients in the placebo group, 35 (39%) in the low-dose group, and 25 (28%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. In the overall population, 29 (25%) patients in the placebo, 38 (32%) in the low-dose, and 30 (25%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (111 [96%] patients in the placebo group, 113 [96%] in the low-dose group, and 115 [95%] in the high-dose group) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (28 [24%], 26 [22%], and 31 [26%]) was similar between all three groups. High-dose nangibotide led to a clinically relevant improvement in SOFA score (of two points or more) from baseline to day 5 over placebo in those with higher cutoff concentrations (≥532 pg/mL) of sTREM-1 at baseline. Low dose nangibotide displayed a similar pattern with lower magnitude of effect across all cutoff values. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not achieve the primary outcome of improvement in SOFA score at the predefined sTREM-1 value. Future studies are needed to confirm the benefit of nangibotide at higher concentrations of TREM-1 activation. FUNDING: Inotrem.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of TREM-1 inhibition with nangibotide in patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory support: the ESSENTIAL randomised, double-blind trial.

Background: Activation of the TREM-1 pathway is associated with outcome in life threatening COVID-19. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway with nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator may improve survival in TREM-1 activated patients (identified using the biomarker sTREM-1). Methods: Phase 2 double-blind randomized controlled trial assessing efficacy, safety, and optimum treatment population of nangibotide (1.0 mg/kg/h) compared to placebo. Patients aged 18-75 years were eligible within 7 days of SARS-CoV-2 documentation and within 48 h of the onset of invasive or non-invasive respiratory support because of COVID-19-related ARDS. Patients were included from September 2020 to April 2022, with a pause in recruitment between January and August 2021. Primary outcome was the improvement in clinical status defined by a seven-point ordinal scale in the overall population with a planned sensitivity analysis in the subgroup of patients with a sTREM-1 level above the median value at baseline (high sTREM-1 group). Secondary endpoints included safety and all-cause 28-day and day 60 mortality. The study was registered in EudraCT (2020-001504-42) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04429334). Findings: The study was stopped after 220 patients had been recruited. Of them, 219 were included in the mITT analysis. Nangibotide therapy was associated with an improved clinical status at day 28. Fifty-two (52.0%) of patients had improved in the placebo group compared to 77 (64.7%) of the nangibotide treated population, an odds ratio (95% CI) for improvement of 1.79 (1.02-3.14), p = 0.043. In the high sTREM-1 population, 18 (32.7%) of placebo patients had improved by day 28 compared to 26 (48.1%) of treated patients, an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.17 (0.96-4.90), p = 0.063 was observed. In the overall population, 28 (28.0%) of placebo treated patients were not alive at the day 28 visit compared to 19 (16.0%) of nangibotide treated patients, an absolute improvement (95% CI) in all-cause mortality at day 28, adjusted for baseline clinical status of 12.1% (1.18-23.05). In the high sTREM-1 population (n = 109), 23 (41.8%) of patients in the placebo group and 12 (22.2%) of patients in the nangibotide group were not alive at day 28, an adjusted absolute reduction in mortality of 19.9% (2.78-36.98). The rate of treatment emergent adverse events was similar in both placebo and nangibotide treated patients. Interpretation: Whilst the study was stopped early due to low recruitment rate, the ESSENTIAL study demonstrated that TREM-1 modulation with nangibotide is safe in COVID-19, and results in a consistent pattern of improved clinical status and mortality compared to placebo. The relationship between sTREM-1 and both risk of death and treatment response merits further evaluation of nangibotide using precision medicine approaches in life threatening viral pneumonitis. Funding: The study was sponsored by Inotrem SA.

Evaluation of PXL065 - deuterium-stabilized (R)-pioglitazone in patients with NASH: A phase II randomized placebo-controlled trial (DESTINY-1).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is efficacious in NASH, but its utility is limited by PPARγ-driven side effects. Pio is a mixture of two enantiomers (R, S). PXL065, deuterium-stabilized R-Pio, lacks PPARγ activity but retains non-genomic activity. We tested the hypothesis that PXL065 would have similar efficacy but a better safety profile than Pio in patients with NASH. METHODS: Patients (≥8% liver fat, NAFLD activity score [NAS] ≥4, F1-F3) received daily doses of PXL065 (7.5, 15, 22.5 mg) or placebo 1:1:1:1 for 36 weeks. The primary endpoint was relative % change in liver fat content (LFC) on MRI-proton density fat fraction; liver histology, non-invasive tests, safety-tolerability, and pharmacokinetics were also assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients were evaluated. All PXL065 groups met the primary endpoint (-21 to -25% LFC, p = 0.008-0.02 vs. placebo); 40% (22.5 mg) achieved a ≥30% LFC reduction. Favorable trends in non-invasive tests including reductions in PIIINP (p = 0.02, 22.5 mg) and NAFLD fibrosis score (p = 0.04, 22.5 mg) were observed. On histology (n = 92), a ≥1 stage fibrosis improvement occurred in 40% (7.5 mg), 50% (15 mg, p = 0.06), and 35% (22.5 mg) vs. 17% for placebo; up to 50% of PXL065-treated patients achieved a ≥2 point NAS improvement without fibrosis worsening vs. 30% with placebo. Metabolic improvements included: HbA1c (-0.41% p = 0.003) and insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR, p = 0.04; Adipo-IR, p = 0.002). Adiponectin increased (+114%, 22.5 mg, p <0.0001) vs. placebo. There was no dose-dependent effect on body weight or PXL065-related peripheral oedema signal. Overall, PXL065 was safe and well tolerated. Pharmacokinetics confirmed dose-proportional and higher steady state R- vs. S-Pio exposure. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is an approved diabetes medicine with proven efficacy in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); PXL065 is a novel related oral agent which has been shown to retain Pio's efficacy in preclinical NASH models, with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. Results of this phase II study are important as PXL065 improved several key NASH disease features with a favorable safety profile - these findings can be applied by researchers seeking to understand pathophysiology and to develop new therapies. These results also indicate that PXL065 warrants further clinical testing in a pivotal NASH trial. Other implications include the potential future availability of a distinct oral therapy for NASH that may be relevant for patients, providers and caregivers seeking to prevent the progression and complications of this disease. CONCLUSIONS: PXL065 is a novel molecule which retains an efficacy profile in NASH similar to Pio with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. A pivotal clinical trial is warranted to confirm the histological benefits reported herein. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Pioglitazone (Pio) is an approved diabetes medicine with proven efficacy in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); PXL065 is a novel related oral agent which has been shown to retain Pio's efficacy in preclinical NASH models, with reduced potential for PPARγ-driven side effects. Results of this phase II study are important as PXL065 improved several key NASH disease features with a favorable safety profile - these findings can be applied by researchers seeking to understand pathophysiology and to develop new therapies. These results also indicate that PXL065 warrants further clinical testing in a pivotal NASH trial. Other implications include the potential future availability of a distinct oral therapy for NASH that may be relevant for patients, providers and caregivers seeking to prevent the progression and complications of this disease.

Efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes in patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: Final results from the PRO-MSACTIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab, a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has been approved in Europe for the treatment of adult patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), on the basis of previous phase III studies. However, limited data were available on ocrelizumab efficacy in RMS according to the Lublin definition of activity (clinical and/or imaging features) used in the current drug label. The PRO-MSACTIVE study was thus designed to provide additional data on ocrelizumab efficacy according to this definition, and also on safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PRO-MSACTIVE is a national, multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase IV French study, conducted in patients with active RMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, RRMS, or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, SPMS). The primary endpoint, which was assessed at week (W) 48, was defined as the proportion of patients free of disease activity (defined by no relapses and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing nor new and/or enlarging T2 lesions using brain MRI). Disease activity, disability and PROs using 6 questionnaires for disease severity, quality of life, impact on work productivity, and treatment satisfaction were described at W24 and W48. Adverse events were described until W72. RESULTS: Among the 422 analyzed patients (RRMS: 376, SPMS: 46), 63.3% (95% CI [58.5%; 67.9%]) were free of disease activity at W48 (RRMS: 62.2% [57.1%; 67.2%], SPMS: 71.7% [56.5%; 84.0%]). A total of 358 patients (84.8%; RRMS: 84.6%, SPMS: 87.0%) were relapse-free up to W48, and the overall adjusted annualized relapse rate was 0.14 (RRMS: 0.15, SPMS: 0.09). Overall, 67.8% of patients (RRMS: 66.8%, SPMS: 76.1%) had no evidence of MRI activity (no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions [83.4%] and no new/enlarging T2 lesions [75.1%]); 58.5% of patients (RRMS: 57.7%, SPMS: 65.2%) achieved No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA: no relapses, no confirmed disability progression, and no MRI activity) at W48. All PRO scores were stable between the first dose of ocrelizumab and W48 and better outcomes were seen for patients having an EDSS score ≥4. Overall, 89.3% of patients reported adverse events, 62.3% adverse events assessed as related to ocrelizumab, and 8.5% serious adverse events. No serious infusion-related reactions, opportunistic infections, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, nor deaths were reported. No new safety signal was identified. CONCLUSION: These data confirm the efficacy of ocrelizumab in a pragmatic setting and its favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMS. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03589105; EudraCT identifier: 2018-000780-91).

Rubus idaeus extract improves symptoms in knee osteoarthritis patients: results from a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most frequent cause of disability in elderly people. In daily practice, the main objective of the physician is to reduce patient symptoms using treatments without adverse effects. However, the most prescribed treatment to manage OA symptoms remains nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs which are associated with severe adverse effects. Therefore, we need a safe alternative to managing OA. One candidate is Rubus idaeus leaf extracts known to inhibit inflammatory responses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a 12-weeks intervention with an ethanolic extract from Rubus idaeus leaf on symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, monocentric trial of 198 participants with femorotibial osteoarthritis. Participants were randomized equally to receive one daily during 3 months either 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg, 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 200 mg, or 1 capsule of placebo. The participants were assessed at baseline and after one and three months of treatment. The primary endpoint was an absolute change of the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. The secondary endpoints were WOMAC global score, stiffness and function sub-scales, knee pain VAS score at walking, the Short Form (SF)-36, the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), the 20-m walk test, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders rate. Statistical analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: In the Intention-to-treat population, WOMAC pain was not significantly modified by Rubus idaeus leaf extract compared to placebo. In contrast, Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg after 12 weeks of treatment significantly reduced pain measured by the VAS. The mean pain decrease induced by Rubus ideaus leaf extract was over -7 mm which is clinically relevant and reached a clinically statistical difference compared to placebo with the highest dose. Rubus Ideaus was not significantly more efficient than the placebo on WOMAC global score, stiffness, and physical function subscores, IPAQ, SF-36, walking distance in treadmill test, SPPB, and evaluation of associated treatments needed to manage OA. CONCLUSION: Rubus idaeus leaf extract was well tolerated and effective to relieve pain in a patient with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03703024  (11/10/2018).

Efficacy and safety of imeglimin add-on to insulin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (TIMES 3): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial with a 36-week open-label extension period.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of imeglimin for up to 52 weeks as combination therapy with insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group phase 3 trial was performed at 35 sites in Japan. Eligible patients were individuals aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control with insulin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either imeglimin (1000 mg twice daily) or matched placebo, in combination with insulin, for 16 weeks. In a subsequent 36-week, open-label extension period, all patients received imeglimin 1000 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 16. RESULTS: In all, 108 and 107 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with imeglimin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, respectively. Compared with placebo, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 16 was -0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.80 to -0.40; P < 0.0001). This decrease was sustained up to 52 weeks with a mean decrease of -0.64% (95% CI -0.82 to -0.46) versus baseline. The incidence of patients experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment groups. The number of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia was similar in the two treatment groups. In patients receiving imeglimin, all hypoglycaemic events were mild in severity; no episodes required assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin significantly improved HbA1c in Japanese patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes by insulin and had a similar safety profile to placebo. The efficacy of imeglimin on top of insulin was sustained for 52 weeks. Imeglimin represents a potential new treatment option for this population as add-on to insulin therapy.

Long-term safety and efficacy of imeglimin as monotherapy or in combination with existing antidiabetic agents in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (TIMES 2): A 52-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of imeglimin for 52 weeks as monotherapy or combination therapy with existing antidiabetic agents in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TIMES 2 was a phase 3, pivotal, open-label trial including patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled despite diet/exercise or despite treatment with a single agent from one of several available classes of antidiabetic drugs along with diet/exercise. All patients received imeglimin 1000 mg twice-daily orally for 52 weeks as monotherapy or combination therapy. The primary endpoint was safety (adverse events, laboratory results, ECG). The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 714 patients received the following treatments: imeglimin monotherapy (n = 134), combination with an α-glucosidase inhibitor (n = 64), biguanide (n = 64), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4-I; n = 63), glinide (n = 64), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA; n = 70), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (n = 63), sulphonylurea (n = 127), or thiazolidinedione (n = 65). The percentage of patients experiencing at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 75.5%. Most of these events were mild or moderate in intensity. Serious TEAEs, none of them related to the study drug, occurred in 5.6% of all patients. No clinically significant changes in ECG, vital signs, physical examination, or laboratory tests were noted in any groups. At week 52, HbA1c decreased by 0.46% with imeglimin monotherapy, by 0.56%-0.92% with imeglimin as oral combination therapy, and by 0.12% with injectable GLP1-RA combination therapy. The greatest net HbA1c reduction (0.92%) occurred in patients receiving a DPP4-I in combination with imeglimin. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin provides well-tolerated, long-term safety and efficacy in both monotherapy and oral combination therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of PXL770, a direct AMP kinase activator, for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (STAMP-NAFLD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study.

BACKGROUND: AMP kinase (AMPK) is an energy sensor implicated in regulation of lipid metabolism, inflammation, and insulin sensitivity. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of PXL770, a novel direct AMPK activator, in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: STAMP-NAFLD, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2a study, was done across 15 US clinical sites. Patients aged 18-75 years with liver fat content of at least 10% at baseline when assessed by MRI-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), via an interactive web response system, to receive oral PXL770 250 mg once daily, 250 mg twice daily, or 500 mg once daily, or matched placebo. Patients were stratified according to type 2 diabetes status and study site. The primary endpoint was relative change in liver fat content from baseline compared with placebo at week 12, assessed by MRI-PDFF. The primary endpoint was analysed in an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification criteria as factors and baseline liver fat content as a covariate in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all as-randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Safety was analysed in the safety population, defined as all as-treated patients receiving at least one dose of the study treatment. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03763877. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2019, and March 13, 2020, 387 patients were screened, of whom 120 were included in the modified intention-to-treat and safety analyses (30 in the 250 mg once daily group, 30 in the 250 mg twice daily group, 29 in the 500 mg once daily group, and 31 in the placebo group). The mean relative change from baseline in liver fat content at week 12 was -1·1% in the placebo group, -1·0% in the 250 mg once daily group (mean difference versus placebo 0·1% [95% CI -15·4 to 15·7], p=0·99), -14·3% in the 250 mg twice daily group (-13·1% [-28·1 to 1·8], p=0·084), and -14·7% in the 500 mg once daily group (-13·5% [-28·5 to 1·4], p=0·076). At least one treatment-emergent adverse event occurred in 23 (77%) of 30 patients in the 250 mg once daily group, 20 (67%) of 30 patients in the 250 mg twice daily group, 21 (72%) of 29 patients in the 500 mg once daily group, and 21 (68%) of 31 patients in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhoea (five [17%] of patients in the 250 mg once daily group, seven [23%] in the 250 mg twice daily group, six [21%] in the 500 mg once daily group, and none in the placebo group). No life-threatening events or treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: PXL770 treatment did not meet the primary outcome of liver fat improvement compared with placebo. Treatment was well tolerated. Given indications that metabolic features improved with PXL770 treatment, AMPK activation might be a promising pharmacological target for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, and could also be considered for further assessment in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. FUNDING: Poxel.

Rationale and protocol for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of nangibotide in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH) phase IIb randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is the subgroup of patients with sepsis, which presents as vasopressor dependence, an elevated blood lactate concentration and is associated with a mortality of at least 30%. Expression of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (TREM-1) pathway, measured using a serum biomarker of pathway activation (soluble TREM-1, sTREM-1) has been associated with outcome in septic shock. Preclinical and early phase patient data suggest that therapeutic modulation of this pathway may improve survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Nangibotide in Patients with Septic Shock is a phase IIb randomised controlled trial that will take place in up to 50 centres in seven countries and recruit 450 patients with septic shock to receive either placebo or one of two doses of nangibotide, a novel regulator of the TREM-1 pathway. The primary outcome will be the impact of nangibotide therapy on the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from a baseline determined before initiation of study drug therapy. This will be assessed first in the patients with an elevated sTREM-1 level and then in the study population as a whole. In addition to safety, secondary outcomes of the study will include efficacy of nangibotide in relation to sTREM-1 levels in terms of organ function, mortality and long-term morbidity. This study will also facilitate the development of a novel platform for the measurement of sTREM-1 at the point of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the responsible ethics committees/institutional review boards in all study countries: Belgium: Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, France: CPP Ile de France II, Denmark: Region Hovedstaden, Spain: ethics committee from Valld'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Finland: Tukija, Ireland: St. James' Hospital (SJH) / Tallaght University Hospital (TUH) Joint Research Ethics Committee, USA: Lifespan, Providence TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Number: 2018-004827-36 and NCT04055909.

Efficacy and Safety of Imeglimin Monotherapy Versus Placebo in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (TIMES 1): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Multicenter Phase 3 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of imeglimin, the first in a new class of oral antidiabetic agent, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 30 sites in Japan. Eligible participants were individuals aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, stable for ≥12 weeks prior to screening, and whose HbA1c was 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral imeglimin (1,000 mg twice daily) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. Investigators, participants, and the sponsor of the study remained blinded throughout the trial. The primary end point was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 24, and the key secondary end point was the percentage of responders (according to two definitions) at week 24. RESULTS: Between 26 December 2017 and 1 February 2019, 106 and 107 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with imeglimin and placebo, respectively. Compared with placebo, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline HbA1c at week 24 was -0.87% (95% CI -1.04 to -0.69 [-9.5 mmol/mol; 95% CI -11.4 to -7.5]; P < 0.0001). Forty-seven (44.3%) patients reported ≥1 adverse event in the imeglimin group versus 48 adverse events (44.9%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin significantly improved HbA1c in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo and had a similar safety profile to placebo. Imeglimin represents a potential new treatment option for this population.

Pharmacodynamic effects of direct AMP kinase activation in humans with insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A phase 1b study.

AMPK is an energy sensor modulating metabolism, inflammation, and a target for metabolic disorders. Metabolic dysfunction results in lower AMPK activity. PXL770 is a direct AMPK activator, inhibiting de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and producing efficacy in preclinical models. We aimed to assess pharmacokinetics, safety, and pharmacodynamics of PXL770 in humans with metabolic syndrome-associated fatty liver disease. In a randomized, double-blind four-week trial, 12 overweight/obese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and insulin resistance received PXL770 500 mg QD; 4 subjects received matching placebo. Endpoints included pharmacokinetics, hepatic fractional DNL, oral glucose tolerance testing, additional pharmacodynamic parameters, and safety. PK parameters show adequate plasma exposure in NAFLD patients for daily oral dosing. PXL770 decreases DNL-both peak and AUC are reduced versus baseline-and improves glycemic parameters and indices of insulin sensitivity versus baseline. Assessment of specific lipids reveals decrease in diacyglycerols/triacylglycerols. Safety/tolerability are similar to placebo. These results unveil initial human translation of AMPK activation and support this therapeutic strategy for metabolic disorders.

Efficacy and safety of imeglimin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of imeglimin monotherapy compared with placebo for 24 weeks in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging, phase 2b clinical trial, Japanese adults (age ≥ 20 years) with T2D either treatment-naïve or previously treated with one oral antidiabetes agent were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive orally imeglimin 500, 1000 or 1500 mg, or placebo twice-daily over a 24-week period. The primary endpoint was the placebo-adjusted change at week 24 in HbA1c. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with orally twice-daily placebo (n = 75), imeglimin 500 mg (n = 75), 1000 mg (n = 74) or 1500 mg (n = 75). At week 24, imeglimin significantly decreased HbA1c (difference vs. placebo: imeglimin 500 mg -0.52% [95% CI: -0.77%, -0.27%], imeglimin 1000 mg -0.94% [95% CI: -1.19%, -0.68%], imeglimin 1500 mg -1.00% [95% CI: -1.26%, -0.75%]; P < .0001 for all). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 68.0%, 62.2%, 73.3% and 68.0% of patients receiving imeglimin 500, 1000 or 1500 mg and placebo, respectively. A small increase in gastrointestinal adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea) occurred with the 1500 mg dose level. Hypoglycaemia was balanced among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin as monotherapy in Japanese patients with T2D was well tolerated and significantly improved glycaemic control with no significant increase in hypoglycaemic events versus placebo. Given the marginal increase in efficacy with the 1500 versus 1000 mg dose (along with the potential for gastrointestinal tolerability issues), a dose of 1000 mg twice-daily was selected for subsequent phase 3 studies.

Improving Breast Cancer Detection Accuracy of Mammography with the Concurrent Use of an Artificial Intelligence Tool.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool for two-dimensional mammography in the breast cancer detection process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multireader, multicase retrospective study, 14 radiologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 2016, using a counterbalance design in which half of the dataset was read without AI and the other half with the help of AI during a first session and vice versa during a second session, which was separated from the first by a washout period. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were assessed as endpoints. RESULTS: The average AUC across readers was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.724, 0.814) without AI and 0.797 (95% CI: 0.754, 0.840) with AI. The average difference in AUC was 0.028 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.055, P = .035). Average sensitivity was increased by 0.033 when using AI support (P = .021). Reading time changed dependently to the AI-tool score. For low likelihood of malignancy (< 2.5%), the time was about the same in the first reading session and slightly decreased in the second reading session. For higher likelihood of malignancy, the reading time was on average increased with the use of AI. CONCLUSION: This clinical investigation demonstrated that the concurrent use of this AI tool improved the diagnostic performance of radiologists in the detection of breast cancer without prolonging their workflow.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020.

6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer (PHARE): final analysis of a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the interim analysis of the Protocol for Herceptin as Adjuvant therapy with Reduced Exposure (PHARE) trial could not show that 6 months of adjuvant trastuzumab was non-inferior to 12 months. Here, we report the planned final analysis based on the prespecified number of occurring events. METHODS: PHARE is an open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer comparing 6 months versus 12 months of trastuzumab treatment concomitant with or following standard neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. The study was undertaken in 156 centres in France. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, operable, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the breast and either positive axillary nodes or negative axillary nodes but a tumour of at least 10 mm. Participants must have received at least four cycles of a chemotherapy for this breast cancer and have started receiving adjuvant trastuzumab-treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 6 months or 12 months of trastuzumab therapy duration between the third and sixth months of adjuvant trastuzumab. The randomisation was stratified by concomitant or sequential treatment with chemotherapy, oestrogen receptor status, and centre. The primary objective was non-inferiority in the intention-to-treat population in the 6-month group in terms of disease-free survival with a prespecified hazard margin of 1·15. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00381901. FINDINGS: 3384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 12 months (n=1691) or 6 months (n=1693) of adjuvant trastuzumab. One patient in the 12-month group and three patients in the 6-month group were excluded, so 1690 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At a median follow-up of 7·5 years (IQR 5·3-8·8), 704 events relevant to disease-free survival were observed (345 [20·4%] in the 12-month group and 359 [21·2%] in the 6-month group). The adjusted hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the 12-month group versus the 6-month group was 1·08 (95% CI 0·93-1·25; p=0·39). The non-inferiority margin was included in the 95% CI. No differences in effects pertaining to trastuzumab duration were found in any of the subgroups. After the completion of trastuzumab treatment, rare adverse events occurred over time and the safety analysis remained similar to the previously published report. In particular, we found no change in the cardiac safety comparison, and only three additional cases in which the left ventricular ejection fraction decreased to less than 50% have been reported in the 12-month group. INTERPRETATION: The PHARE study did not show the non-inferiority of 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab. Hence, adjuvant trastuzumab standard duration should remain 12 months. FUNDING: The French National Cancer Institute.

IqYmune® is an effective maintenance treatment for multifocal motor neuropathy: A randomised, double-blind, multi-center cross-over non-inferiority study vs Kiovig®-The LIME Study.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is the gold-standard for maintenance treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). This phase III, randomised, double-blind, multi-centre, active-control, crossover study, aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of IqYmune® relative to Kiovig®, primarily based on efficacy criteria. Twenty-two adult MMN patients, treated with any brand of IVIg (except Kiovig® or IqYmune®) at a stable maintenance dose within the range of 1 to 2 g/kg every 4 to 8 weeks, were randomised to receive either Kiovig® followed by IqYmune®, or IqYmune® followed by Kiovig®. Each product was administered for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference between IqYmune® and Kiovig® in mean assessments of modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) 10 sum score (strength of 5 upper-limb and 5 lower-limb muscle groups, on both sides, giving a score from 0 to 100) during the evaluation period (non-inferiority margin of Δ = 2). A linear mixed model analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of IqYmune® relative to Kiovig®, independently of the covariates (value at baseline, treatment period, and treatment sequence). The estimated "IqYmune® - Kiovig®" difference was -0.01, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to 0.48. The number of adverse reactions (ARs) and the percentage of patients affected were similar for the two products: 39 ARs in 10 patients with IqYmune® vs 32 ARs in 11 patients with Kiovig®. No thromboembolic events nor haemolysis nor renal impairment were observed. In this first clinical trial comparing two IVIg brands for maintenance treatment of MMN, efficacy and tolerability of both brands were similar.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in patients with uncontrolled asthma: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A variety of different fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are available for the treatment of asthma. The aim of this 24-week, open-label, multicenter, Phase IIIb randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI; 100/25 or 200/25 µg) compared with twice-daily fixed combinations of ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [FP/S] and budesonide/formoterol [BUD/F]) as maintenance therapy in patients with uncontrolled asthma treated with ICS alone. METHODS: Adult patients with documented physician-diagnosed asthma ≥1 year with an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score ≥15 and < 20 were included. The primary study endpoint was change from baseline in ACT total score at Week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 423 patients were randomized to receive study medication in France and Germany. The least-squares mean change (standard error) in ACT total score at Week 12 was 3.6 units with FF/VI and 2.8 with usual ICS/LABA, giving a treatment difference of 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.5; p = 0.033). Non-inferiority of FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA was confirmed at Weeks 6, 18 and 24. The observed safety profile for FF/VI in this study was in line with previous experience with FF/VI. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, in a tightly controlled randomized controlled trial setting, once-daily FF/VI provides similar asthma control over 24 weeks to usual, twice-daily ICS/LABA in patients with asthma that is uncontrolled on ICS alone. FF/VI was well tolerated.

Relative short-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine versus vortioxetine in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

Agomelatine and vortioxetine are antidepressants with different mechanisms of action compared to other pharmaceutical treatment options. The objective of this present analysis is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine (25-50 mg) compared to vortioxetine (10-15-20 mg) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison using placebo as a common control. The main outcomes were efficacy (response to treatment by Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale/Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and acceptability (withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse events). 10 agomelatine and 11 vortioxetine studies were included in the analysis. For efficacy, no difference was shown between agomelatine and vortioxetine (E[95% CI] = -0.03 [-0.12;0.05]). For acceptability, no significant difference was found between both antidepressants. These findings substantiate current understanding that most antidepressants are of similar average efficacy and tolerability. Such equivalent therapeutic benefit of both compounds, measured by a quantitative clinical research approach, has to be discussed with the knowledge of a qualitative estimation in routine practice.