Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor in Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Primary biliary cholangitis is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease characterized by the destruction of interlobular bile ducts, leading to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Whether elafibranor, an oral, dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) α and δ agonist, may have benefit as a treatment for primary biliary cholangitis is unknown. METHODS: In this multinational, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with ursodeoxycholic acid to receive once-daily elafibranor, at a dose of 80 mg, or placebo. The primary end point was a biochemical response (defined as an alkaline phosphatase level of <1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction of ≥15% from baseline, and normal total bilirubin levels) at week 52. Key secondary end points were normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level at week 52 and a change in pruritus intensity from baseline through week 52 and through week 24, as measured on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS; scores range from 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst itch imaginable]). RESULTS: A total of 161 patients underwent randomization. A biochemical response (the primary end point) was observed in 51% of the patients (55 of 108) who received elafibranor and in 4% (2 of 53) who received placebo, for a difference of 47 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 57; P<0.001). The alkaline phosphatase level normalized in 15% of the patients in the elafibranor group and in none of the patients in the placebo group at week 52 (difference, 15 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 23; P = 0.002). Among patients who had moderate-to-severe pruritus (44 patients in the elafibranor group and 22 in the placebo group), the least-squares mean change from baseline through week 52 on the WI-NRS did not differ significantly between the groups (-1.93 vs. -1.15; difference, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.99 to 0.42; P = 0.20). Adverse events that occurred more frequently with elafibranor than with placebo included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with elafibranor resulted in significantly greater improvements in relevant biochemical indicators of cholestasis than placebo. (Funded by GENFIT and Ipsen; ELATIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04526665.).

Etanercept reduces symptoms and severity of psoriasis after cessation of cyclosporine therapy: results of the SCORE study.

Cyclosporine is an established therapy for psoriasis that provides rapid relief of symptoms but has long-term toxic side effects. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of etanercept as replacement therapy for cyclosporine in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Patients with plaque psoriasis were given cyclosporine 5 mg/kg/day until achievement of PASI50 at which point cyclosporine was tapered to 0 over 6 weeks. At week 6, patients were randomised (1:1) to receive etanercept (50 mg/week) or placebo for an additional 24 weeks. Patients in the etanercept group (n = 58) experienced a reduction of -1.1 in mean PASI score (p = 0.233 vs. cyclosporine) at week 30; patients in the placebo group (n = 62) had mean PASI increase of 3.7 (p < 0.001 vs. cyclosporine). The incidence of patients reporting any adverse events was not significant between groups (77% etanercept, 74% placebo; p = 0.675). Etanercept demonstrated higher efficacy and good tolerability as replacement therapy for cyclosporine in plaque psoriasis.

An integrated analysis of the efficacy of desvenlafaxine compared with placebo in patients with major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: A meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed on the complete set of registration trials (nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week studies) of desvenlafaxine. Patients received fixed (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/day; n=1,342) or flexible doses (100-400 mg/day; n=463) of desvenlafaxine or placebo (n=1,108). The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)); the primary intent to treat analyses used the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS: Significantly greater improvement with desvenlafaxine versus placebo on the HAM-D(17) total score was observed for the full data set (difference in adjusted means: -1.9; P<.001), each fixed-dose group (all P<.001), and the flexible-dose group (P=.024). Overall rates of HAM-D1(17) response (> or =150% decrease from baseline score: 53% vs 41%) and remission (HAM-D(17) < or =7: 32% vs 23%) were significantly greater for desvenlafaxine versus placebo (all P<.001). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events increased with dose (4% to 18%; placebo: 3%). CONCLUSION: Desvenlafaxine demonstrated short-term efficacy for treating major depressive disorder across the range of doses studied. No evidence of greater efficacy was observed with doses >50 mg/day; a strong dose-response effect on tolerability was observed.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day for major depressive disorder in a placebo-controlled trial.

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) 50 and 100 mg/day for major depressive disorder (MDD). A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Europe and South Africa. Outpatients with MDD received fixed-dose desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score; secondary measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores. The intent-to-treat population included 483 patients: desvenlafaxine 50 mg (n=164), desvenlafaxine 100 mg (n=158), and placebo (n=161). At the last-observation-carried-forward analysis (final evaluation) using analysis of covariance, adjusted mean changes from baseline on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were significantly greater for both desvenlafaxine 50 mg (-13.2; P=0.002) and 100 mg (-13.7; P<0.001) versus placebo (-10.7). Significant differences on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores were observed for desvenlafaxine 50 mg (P=0.002) and 100 mg (P<0.001) versus placebo. Both doses of desvenlafaxine were generally well tolerated. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, dizziness, insomnia, constipation, fatigue, anxiety, and decreased appetite. Fixed doses of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day are safe, generally well tolerated, and effective at a clinically relevant level for the treatment of MDD.

A pooled analysis of two placebo-controlled trials of desvenlafaxine in major depressive disorder.

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) were evaluated in two similarly designed, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, venlafaxine-extended-release-referenced, flexible-dose studies of outpatients with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Owing to a high placebo response, the individual studies were underpowered. Therefore, a post-hoc pooled analysis was performed (desvenlafaxine and placebo data were pooled; venlafaxine extended release data were not, owing to different flexible-dose regimens in the two studies). The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement item score was a secondary outcome. Analysis of the pooled data (using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures) revealed that after 8 weeks of treatment, desvenlafaxine was significantly better than placebo on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [-14.21 vs. -11.87 for desvenlafaxine and placebo, respectively; magnitude of effect=-2.34 (P<0.001)] and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement item scores [1.95 vs. 2.32 for desvenlafaxine and placebo, respectively; magnitude of effect=-0.37 (P<0.001)]. Adverse events were comparable to those found with other drugs sharing a similar mechanism of action. These data support the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine succinate in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

The antidepressant efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine succinate (desvenlafaxine) were evaluated in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder were treated with fixed once-daily doses of desvenlafaxine 200 or 400 mg for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. At the final on-therapy evaluation, adjusted mean change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score was greater for desvenlafaxine 200 and 400 mg/day vs. placebo. Both desvenlafaxine doses showed greater efficacy than placebo on the secondary efficacy measures, including the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale scores, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores, CGI-Severity, and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression response rate. Desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day was also significantly better than placebo on remission, Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity overall scores, and some Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Desvenlafaxine 400 mg/day was significantly better than placebo on selected Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and safety assessments revealed few clinically significant changes in vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiogram results. These data provide support for the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder.