Comparison of Los Angeles Grades of Erosive Esophagitis Scored by Local Investigators vs Central Adjudicators in a Clinical Trial.

Approximately 30% of patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms have endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis (EE).1 The severity of EE is commonly graded using the Los Angeles (LA) classification system as grade A (minimal) to D (very severe), depending on the extent of endoscopically visible mucosal breaks (Supplementary Figure 1).2 Accurate grading of EE severity is crucial in clinical trials of medical EE treatments, as EE severity strongly influences both initial rates of healing and the likelihood of recurrence during maintenance treatment.3,4 Almost all EE treatment studies have relied exclusively on local investigators' grading of EE severity to determine study eligibility and response to treatment. Those few studies that included central adjudication did not assess the reliability of grading by local investigators.5 Unlike typical studies of EE treatment, the phase III clinical trial of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole for the treatment of EE (NCT04124926) mandated central adjudication of endoscopic grading for study participation.6 The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the rate of agreement between local investigators and central adjudicators for EE grading during screening for entrance into that clinical trial.

Effect of endothelin-A receptor blockade with atrasentan on tumor progression in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a randomized, phase II, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atrasentan (ABT-627), an endothelin-A receptor antagonist, in the treatment of asymptomatic, hormone-refractory prostatic adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients was conducted in the United States and Europe. Two hundred eighty-eight asymptomatic patients with HRPCa and evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to one of three study groups receiving a once-daily oral dose of placebo, 2.5 mg atrasentan, or 10 mg atrasentan, respectively. Primary end point was time to progression; secondary end points included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, bone scan changes, and changes in bone and tumor markers. RESULTS: The three treatment groups were similar in all baseline characteristics. Median time to progression in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (n = 288) was longer in the 10-mg atrasentan group compared with the placebo group: 183 v 137 days, respectively; (P =.13). Median time to progression in evaluable patients (n = 244) was significantly prolonged, from 129 days (placebo group) to 196 days (10-mg atrasentan group; P =.021). For both ITT and evaluable populations in the 10-mg atrasentan group, median time to PSA progression was twice that of the placebo group (155 v 71 days; P =.002). Patients who received placebo continued to have significant increases from baseline in serum (lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]), a marker of disease burden; elevations in LDH were uniformly attenuated by atrasentan in the ITT population. Headache, peripheral edema, and rhinitis were primary side effects, typically of mild to moderate severity. Quality of life was not adversely affected by atrasentan. CONCLUSION: Atrasentan is an oral, targeted therapy with favorable tolerability and the potential to delay progression of HRPCa.

Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation.

BACKGROUND: Gengraf capsule, an AB-rated generic cyclosporine for Neoral, has been shown to be bioequivalent in previous studies. The purpose of this pharmacokinetic study performed in stable renal transplant recipients was to evaluate interchangeability of Gengraf and Neoral. METHODS: Using an open-label, three-period design, 50 renal transplant recipients taking stable doses of Neoral completed a multicenter study. Subjects continued their Neoral regimen during period I (days 1-14). Subjects then switched from Neoral on a milligram-for-milligram basis to Gengraf during period II (days 15-28), followed by conversion to the same milligram-for-milligram dosing regimen of Neoral during period III (days 29-35). Twelve-hour pharmacokinetic evaluations (maximum observed blood concentration [C(max) ], concentration before dosing [C(trough) ], time to maximum observed concentration [T(max) ], and area under the blood concentration-vs.-time curve [AUC]) occurred on days 1, 14, 15, 28, and 29. Additional predose samples (C (trough)) were evaluated on days 7, 21, and 35. Laboratory and safety parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of Gengraf (C(max), T(max), C(trough), and AUC) were indistinguishable from the Neoral values in stable renal allograft recipients. The bioequivalent capsules were interchangeable with respect to C(max), C(trough), and AUC at steady state and also on conversion from one capsule formulation to the other. The 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Gengraf versus Neoral comparison at steady state (day 28 vs. day 14) were 0.95 to 1.03 for AUC and 0.92 to 1.04 for C(max). Trough concentrations remained consistent throughout the study, with no need for dosage adjustment in any of the subjects. Gengraf is well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, comparable to the safety profile of Neoral. CONCLUSIONS The pharmacokinetics of Gengraf are equivalent and indistinguishable from those of Neoral. Gengraf is well tolerated and interchangeable with Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients.

Suppression of prostate cancer induced bone remodeling by the endothelin receptor A antagonist atrasentan.

PURPOSE: We examined the effects of atrasentan (endothelin-A receptor antagonist) on bone deposition and resorption markers and on bone scan index. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial of hormone refractory prostate cancer patients was done at 74 medical centers in the United States and Europe. A total of 288 asymptomatic patients with hormone refractory prostate adenocarcinoma and evidence of metastatic disease were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups, namely 2.5 mg. atrasentan, 10 mg. atrasentan or placebo administered orally daily until disease progression. The main outcomes measures were changes in bone deposition markers (total alkaline phosphatase and bone alkaline phosphatase) and bone resorption (N-telopeptides, C-telopeptides and deoxypyridinoline), and in the bone scan index. RESULTS: At baseline markers of bone deposition and resorption were elevated 1.4 to 2.7-fold above respective upper limits of normal. Subjects receiving placebo experienced a 58% elevation in mean total alkaline phosphatase and a 99% elevation in mean bone alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.001), whereas subjects receiving 10 mg. atrasentan maintained stable mean total alkaline phosphatase and bone alkaline phosphatase values compared with baseline. N-telopeptides, C-telopeptides and deoxypyridinoline elevation from baseline were consistently less in patients receiving 10 mg. atrasentan compared with placebo. Similar trends were observed in subjects who received 2.5 mg. atrasentan. Changes in clinical bone scan studies paralleled bone marker changes. CONCLUSIONS: Atrasentan suppressed markers of biochemical and clinical prostate cancer progression in bone and demonstrates clinical activity for hormone refractory prostate cancer.