A multinational, drug utilization study to investigate the use of dexmedetomidine (Dexdor®) in clinical practice in the EU.

AIMS: Dexmedetomidine (dexdor®) is approved in the European Union (EU) for sedation of adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). The present observational, retrospective study was requested by the European Medicines Agency to investigate dexmedetomidine use in clinical practice, with a particular focus on off-label use, including the paediatric population. METHODS: Study countries and sites were chosen from those with highest dexmedetomidine use, based on sales. Site selection (blind) was conducted by a multispecialist, independent group. Anonymized data on demographics, treatment indication, dexmedetomidine dosing, concomitant medications and treatment effectiveness were collected retrospectively from records of all dexmedetomidine-treated patients at the site during the enrolment period. Informed consent was waived, to avoid influencing the prescribing of dexmedetomidine. Recruitment was completed within 18 months of first site initiation. RESULTS: Data from 2000 patients were collected from 16 hospitals in four EU countries (Finland 750, Poland 505, Germany 470, Austria 275). The median age was 62 years, with more males (70.2%) than females. Dexmedetomidine was primarily used in the adult ICU (86.0%) for ICU sedation (78.6%) and mostly dosed according the product label. The intended sedative effect was obtained in 84.9% of administrations. Paediatric use (5.9% of patients, mostly in Austria and Finland) occurred mainly in the adult or paediatric ICU (75.6%) for sedation (67.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most patients were treated with dexmedetomidine according to the product labelling. Use in children was limited but significant and similar in scope to that in adults. Administrations not fully according to the product labelling usually occurred in an ICU environment and reflected extensively investigated clinical uses of dexmedetomidine.

Effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on patient-ventilator interaction in difficult-to-wean, mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective, open-label, randomised, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine can be used for sedation of mechanically ventilated patients and has minor respiratory effects. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of patient-ventilator dyssynchronies during sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised clinical trial, comparing dexmedetomidine with standard propofol sedation at three intensive care units of university hospitals in Italy. Twenty difficult-to-wean patients for whom the first weaning trial had failed and who were on pressure support ventilation were randomised to receive sedation with either dexmedetomidine or propofol at a similar level of sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS] score +1 to -2). The asynchrony index (AI) was calculated using tracings of airflow, airway pressure and electrical activity of the diaphragm sampled at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 h. RESULTS: The mean AI was lower with dexmedetomidine than with propofol from 2 h onwards, although the two groups significantly differed only at 12 h (2.68 % vs 9.10 %, p < 0.05). No further difference was observed at 18 and 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: When sedation with propofol and dexmedetomidine was compared at similar RASS scores of patients in whom first weaning trial had failed, the AI was lower with dexmedetomidine than with propofol, and this difference was statistically significant at 12 h. These results suggest that sedation with dexmedetomidine may offer some advantages in terms of patient-ventilator synchrony.

Prevalence and Spectrum of AR Ligand-Binding Domain Mutations Detected in Circulating-Tumor DNA Across Disease States in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is typically treated with agents directly or indirectly targeting the androgen receptor (AR) pathway. However, such treatment is limited by resistance mechanisms, including the development of activating mutations in the AR ligand-binding domain (AR-LBD). METHODS: This study evaluated a database of over 15,000 patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) undergoing comprehensive circulating-tumor DNA analysis (Guardant360, Redwood City, CA) between 2014 and 2021, with associated clinical information from administrative claims (GuardantINFORM database). RESULTS: Of 15,705 patients with PC included, 54% had mCRPC at the time of their blood draw. Of those, 49% had previous treatment with an AR pathway inhibitor (ARPi). AR-LBD mutation prevalence was 15% in patients with mCRPC who were untreated with a next-generation ARPi, 22% in those after one line of ARPi therapy, and 24% in those after two lines of ARPi treatment. Next-generation ARPi treatment yielded an increase in AR L702H and T878A/S mutations after abiraterone, and an increase in AR L702H and F877L mutations after enzalutamide. AR-LBD+ patients demonstrated unique biology, including increased concurrent mutations in the cell-cycle, wingless-related integration site, homologous recombination repair, and phospho-inositide 3-kinase pathways (all P < .0005), and greater low-level (copy number <10) AR amplifications (P = .0041). AR-LBD+ patients exhibited worse overall survival (OS) relative to a matched cohort of AR-LBD- patients (50.1 v 60.7 months, unadjusted log-rank P = .013). CONCLUSION: This large database analysis demonstrates that AR-LBD mutation prevalence increases after next-generation ARPi use. AR-LBD+ tumors demonstrate unique biology (more oncogenic pathway mutations and low-level AR amplification) and reduced OS. These findings inform the development of novel therapies designed to circumvent AR-mediated therapeutic resistance.

Targeted Inhibition of CYP11A1 in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is regulated by steroid hormones, even in castration-resistant disease. ODM-208, a novel inhibitor of cytochrome P450 11A1 (which catalyzes the first step of steroid-hormone biosynthesis), was investigated in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: CYPIDES is a first-in-human phase 1 (3 + 3 design) and phase 2 study. We administered ODM-208 twice daily with glucocorticoid/mineralocorticoid replacement and ongoing androgen deprivation therapy to adults with previously treated mCRPC, regardless of androgen receptor gene (AR) ligand-binding domain mutations (phase 1) and with activating AR ligand-binding domain mutations (ARmut; phase 2). Safety, pharmacokinetics, steroid-hormone pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy were the key outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients received one or more doses of ODM-208: 47 in phase 1 (20 [42.6%] with ARmut) and 45 in phase 2 (all ARmut). A dose of ODM-208 of 5 mg twice a day with dexamethasone 1 mg/fludrocortisone 0.1 mg provided a balance between decreased steroidogenesis and toxicity. Treatment-related adrenal insufficiency was the most common toxicity in phase 1 (n=17, 36.2%; necessitating ODM-208 discontinuation in one patient); this toxicity occurred in six patients (13.3%) at 5 mg twice a day in phase 2. Median circulating testosterone levels declined from 3.0 ng/dl (interquartile range, 1.3 to 6.2 ng/dl) at baseline to undetectable levels within the first week of ODM-208 5 mg twice a day treatment in 46 of 53 (87%) patients. A decrease in prostate-specific antigen levels of 50% or more occurred in 14 of 19 (73.7%) patients with ARmut and 2 of 23 (8.7%) patients with AR wild type in phase 1 and in 24 of 45 (53.3%) patients with ARmut in phase 2. CONCLUSIONS: ODM-208 potently inhibited steroid-hormone biosynthesis with the expected toxicity of adrenal insufficiency. Evidence of antitumor activity was observed in this heavily pretreated mCRPC population, especially in those with ARmut. (Funded by Orion Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03436485.)

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). INTERVENTIONS: Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.

Pharmacokinetics of prolonged infusion of high-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients.

INTRODUCTION: Only limited information exists on the pharmacokinetics of prolonged (> 24 hours) and high-dose dexmedetomidine infusions in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics of long dexmedetomidine infusions and to assess the dose linearity of high doses. Additionally, we wanted to quantify for the first time in humans the concentrations of H-3, a practically inactive metabolite of dexmedetomidine. METHODS: Thirteen intensive care patients with mean age of 57 years and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II score of 45 were included in the study. Dexmedetomidine infusion was commenced by using a constant infusion rate for the first 12 hours. After the first 12 hours, the infusion rate of dexmedetomidine was titrated between 0.1 and 2.5 µg/kg/h by using predefined dose levels to maintain sedation in the range of 0 to -3 on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Dexmedetomidine was continued as long as required to a maximum of 14 days. Plasma dexmedetomidine and H-3 metabolite concentrations were measured, and pharmacokinetic variables were calculated with standard noncompartmental methods. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse events, cardiovascular signs, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: The following geometric mean values (coefficient of variation) were calculated: length of infusion, 92 hours (117%); dexmedetomidine clearance, 39.7 L/h (41%); elimination half-life, 3.7 hours (38%); and volume of distribution during the elimination phase, 223 L (35%). Altogether, 116 steady-state concentrations were found in 12 subjects. The geometric mean value for clearance at steady state was 53.1 L/h (55%). A statistically significant linear relation (r2 = 0.95; P < 0.001) was found between the areas under the dexmedetomidine plasma concentration-time curves and cumulative doses of dexmedetomidine. The elimination half-life of H-3 was 9.1 hours (37%). The ratio of AUC0-∞ of H-3 metabolite to that of dexmedetomidine was 1.47 (105%), ranging from 0.29 to 4.4. The ratio was not statistically significantly related to the total dose of dexmedetomidine or the duration of the infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest linear pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine up to the dose of 2.5 µg/kg/h. Despite the high dose and prolonged infusions, safety findings were as expected for dexmedetomidine and the patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00747721.

Safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (the REFALS study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet need for new therapies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In a clinical study with healthy volunteers, levosimendan, a calcium sensitiser, was shown to improve neuromechanical efficiency and contractile function of the human diaphragm. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral levosimendan in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with a focus on respiratory function. METHODS: The REFALS study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial at 99 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis specialist centres in 14 countries worldwide. People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were eligible for participation if they were at least 18 years of age and had a sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) of 60-90% predicted. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive web-response system to receive either levosimendan or placebo. The capsules for oral administration were identical in appearance to maintain blinding of participants and investigators. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks, assessed as the percentage of predicted normal sitting SVC. The key secondary endpoint was the combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS) up to 48 weeks. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03505021) and has been completed. An extension study (REFALS-ES; NCT03948178) has also been completed, but will be reported separately. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 28, 2019, 871 people were screened for the study, of whom 496 were randomly assigned either levosimendan (n=329) or placebo (n=167). Participants were followed up between June 27, 2018 and June 26, 2020, for a median duration of 50·1 (IQR 37·5-51·1) weeks. The median duration of treatment was 47·9 (IQR 26·4-48·1) weeks. Change from baseline in supine SVC at 12 weeks was -6·73% with levosimendan and -6·99% with placebo, with no significant difference between the treatments (estimated treatment difference 0·26%, 95% CI -2·03 to 2·55, p=0·83). Similarly, at week 48, CAFS did not differ between treatment groups (least squares mean change from baseline 10·69, 95% CI -15·74 to 37·12; nominal p value=0·43). The most frequent adverse events were increased heart rate (106 [33%] of 326 receiving levosimendan vs 12 [7%] of 166 receiving placebo), fall (85 [26%] vs 48 [29%]), headache (93 [29%] vs 36 [22%]), and dyspnoea (59 [18%] vs 32 [19%]). 33 (10%) participants allocated levosimendan and 20 (12%) assigned placebo died during the trial, mainly due to respiratory failure or progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. INTERPRETATION: Levosimendan was not superior to placebo in maintaining respiratory function in a broad population with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Although levosimendan was generally well tolerated, increased heart rate and headache occurred more frequently with levosimendan than with placebo. The possibility of a clinically relevant subgroup of responsive individuals requires further evaluation. FUNDING: Orion Corporation.

Phase I/IIa, open-label, multicentre study to evaluate the optimal dosing and safety of ODM-203 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) signalling are observed in various tumours. We report a first-in-human phase I/IIa trial evaluating tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumour activity of ODM-203, a novel FGFR and VEGFR inhibitor. METHODS: Open-label, non-randomised, multicentre, phase I/IIa dose escalation and expansion study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours. RESULTS: Overall, 84 patients received treatment; optimal tablet dose was found to be 400 mg/day with food. All patients experienced at least one adverse event; the majority (89.2%) were grade 1 or 2% and 70.4% were considered treatment related. The most commonly reported events were bilirubin increase-related events (75%) and diarrhoea (50%).Overall response rate was 9.2% and median progression-free survival was 16.1 and 12.4 weeks for patients with aberrant or non-aberrant FGFR tumours. Median time on treatment was 10.1 weeks for all patients and 14.5 weeks for patients who received 400 mg tablets. CONCLUSION: This study suggests ODM-203 400 mg/day results in sufficient plasma concentrations and acceptable tolerability in most patients. Preliminary signs of therapeutic activity of ODM-203 in patients with solid tumours was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02264418.

Population pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine in healthy volunteers have been studied, there are limited data about the pharmacokinetics of long-term administration of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. METHODS: This population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed to quantify the pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients following infusions up to 14 days in duration. The data consisted of three phase III studies (527 patients with sparse blood sampling, for a total of 2,144 samples). Covariates were included in a full random-effects covariate model and the most important covariate relationships were tested separately. The linearity of dexmedetomidine clearance was evaluated by observing steady-state plasma concentrations acquired at various infusion rates. RESULTS: The data were adequately described with a one-compartment model. The clearance of dexmedetomidine was 39 (95 % CI 37-41) L/h and volume of distribution 104 (95 % CI 93-115) L. Both clearance and volume of distribution were highly variable between patients (coefficients of variation of 62 and 57 %, respectively), which highlights the importance of dose titration by response. Covariate analysis showed a strong correlation between body weight and clearance of dexmedetomidine. The clearance of dexmedetomidine was constant in the dose range 0.2-1.4 µg/kg/h. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine are dose-proportional in prolonged infusions when dosing rates of 0.2-1.4 µg/kg/h, recommended by the Dexdor(®) summary of product characteristics, are used.

Effect of levosimendan on the short-term clinical course of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of levosimendan, a positive inotropic drug with vasodilator effects, given intravenously to patients with acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF). METHODS: We performed 2 sequential trials, the first to develop a new measure of efficacy in 100 patients, and the second to use this measure to evaluate levosimendan in an additional 600 patients. Patients admitted with ADHF received placebo or intravenous levosimendan for 24 h in addition to standard treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite that evaluated changes in clinical status during the first 5 days after randomization. RESULTS: In the 600-patient trial, more levosimendan than placebo patients (58 vs. 44) were improved at all 3 pre-specified time points (6 h, 24 h, and 5 days), whereas fewer levosimendan patients (58 vs. 82) experienced clinical worsening (p = 0.015 for the difference between the groups). These differences were apparent, despite more frequent intensification of adjunctive therapy in the placebo group (79 vs. 45 patients). Improvements in patient self-assessment and declines in B-type natriuretic peptide levels with levosimendan persisted for 5 days and were associated with reduced length of stay (p = 0.009). Similar findings were present in the 100-patient pilot trial. Levosimendan was associated with more frequent hypotension and cardiac arrhythmias during the infusion period and a numerically higher risk of death across the 2 trials (49 of 350 on a regimen of levosimendan vs. 40 of 350 on a regimen of placebo at 90 days, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ADHF, intravenous levosimendan provided rapid and durable symptomatic relief. As dosed in this trial, levosimendan was associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. (Evaluation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy in the Short Term Treatment of Decompensated Chronic Heart Failure; NCT00048425).