AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial.

RATIONALE: Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR. METHODS: A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability. RESULTS: AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment. CONCLUSIONS: AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.

Phase 1 trial of an investigational Tdap booster vaccine with CpG 1018 adjuvant compared with Boostrix in healthy adults and adolescents.

This phase 1 trial assessed the safety and immunogenicity of an investigational tetanus/diphtheria/acellular pertussis vaccine combined with CpG 1018 adjuvant 1500 µg (Tdap-1018 1500 µg) or 3000 µg (Tdap-1018 3000 µg) in adults and adolescents. In this randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, dose-escalation trial, healthy participants aged 10 to 22 years received 1 dose of Tdap-1018 1500 µg, Tdap-1018 3000 µg, or Boostrix. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and booster response rates (BRRs) for antibodies against pertussis (pertussis toxin, filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin), tetanus, and diphtheria antigens, and neutralizing antibodies against pertussis toxin were assessed 4 weeks after vaccination. Safety and tolerability were assessed for solicited post-injection reactions within 7 days after vaccination and unsolicited adverse events up to 12 weeks after vaccination. Of 117 enrolled participants, 80 adults (92%) and 30 adolescents (100%) completed the study. Both Tdap-1018 formulations were generally well tolerated, with no vaccine-related serious adverse events. Frequency and severity in post-injection reactions after Tdap-1018 administration were similar to Boostrix except for higher proportions of moderate pain for Tdap-1018. In adults at week 4, ratio of GMCs and BRRs for all antigens in the 3000-µg group were similar to or higher than Boostrix, with significantly higher GMC ratios for anti-pertussis toxin (2.1 [1.5-3.0]) and anti-tetanus (1.8 [1.1-2.9]) and significantly higher BRRs for anti-pertussis toxin (difference [95% CI]: 34.5% [13.4-54.6]), anti-pertactin (19.2% [4.4-38.1]), and anti-tetanus (30.0% [3.6-52.7]) antibodies. For adolescents, in the 3000-µg group, ratio of GMCs and BRRs were similar to or higher than Boostrix for all antigens. Both Tdap-1018 formulations showed acceptable safety and tolerability profiles. Tdap-1018 3000 µg induced similar or higher immune responses than Boostrix. ACTRN12620001177943 (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=ACTRN12620001177943p).

Effect of 1PC111, a Fixed-dose Combination of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe, Versus Pitavastatin or Ezetimibe Monotherapy on Lipid Profiles in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia or Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to show that the efficacy of 1PC111 is superior to that of either ezetimibe or pitavastatin alone (monotherapy) for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study. Patients with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia were randomized to receive 1PC111 (which was a fixed-dose combination of pitavastatin 2 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg), pitavastatin 2 mg, or ezetimibe 10 mg daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the difference in the percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 between the 1PC111 and each monotherapy group. The secondary end points were the percent change in other lipid profiles from baseline to each visit. All patients were assessed for adverse events until end of study. FINDINGS: A total of 388 patients were randomly assigned to the 1PC111 (n = 128), pitavastatin (n = 132), or ezetimibe (n = 128) group. Generally, baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups. A statistically significant decrease in the LDL-C level at week 12 was observed in the 1PC111 group (-50.50% [14.9%]) compared with either the pitavastatin (-36.11% [11.4%]; P < 0.001) or ezetimibe (-19.85% [12.4%]; P < 0.001) group. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between 1PC111 and each monotherapy group in the reduction in total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B levels. Moreover, there was a trend toward more efficient lowering of LDL-C levels in elderly patients (age ≥65 years) than in younger patients (age <65 years) by 1PC111 treatment. In patients given a class I recommendation for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention, the percentage of patients achieving the LDL-C target of <100 mg/dL at week 12 was significantly higher in the 1PC111 group than in both monotherapy groups (P < 0.001). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar among 3 groups. IMPLICATIONS: 1PC111 was more effective in improving lipid profiles and achieving the LDL-C goal than pitavastatin or ezetimibe alone for hypercholesterolemia treatment. Furthermore, 1PC111 may provide more benefit in treating elderly patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04643093.