Interactive Response Technology Research Articles

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of antisense oligonucleotide BIIB078 in adults with C9orf72-associated amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a phase 1, randomised, double blinded, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose study

Hexanucleotide repeat expansion of C9orf72 is a common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). No C9orf72-targeted treatments are available. BIIB078 is an investigational antisense oligonucleotide targeting C9orf72 sense RNA. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of BIIB078 in participants with C9orf72-associated ALS. This phase 1, randomised controlled trial was done at 22 sites in six countries (Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and USA). Adults with ALS and a pathogenic repeat expansion in C9orf72 were randomly assigned within six cohorts, via Interactive Response Technology in a 3:1 ratio per cohort, to receive BIIB078 (5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, 35 mg, 60 mg, or 90 mg in cohorts 1-6, respectively) or placebo, via an intrathecal bolus injection. The treatment period consisted of three loading doses of study treatment, administered approximately once every 2 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance doses during a treatment period of about 3 months for cohorts 1-3 and about 6 months for cohorts 4-6. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03626012) and is completed. Between Sept 10, 2018, and Nov 17, 2021, 124 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 18 patients were excluded and 106 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive 5 mg (n=6), 10 mg (n=9), 20 mg (n=9), 35 mg (n=19), 60 mg (n=18), or 90 mg (n=18) of BIIB078, or placebo (n=27). 58 (55%) of 106 patients were female. All patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in all analyses. All participants had at least one adverse event; most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse events in BIIB078-treated participants were falls, procedural pain, headache, and post lumbar puncture syndrome. 14 (18%) of 79 patients who received any dose of BIIB078 reported serious adverse events, compared with nine (33%) of 27 patients who received placebo. Five participants who received BIIB078 and three participants who received placebo had fatal adverse events: respiratory failure in a participant who received 10 mg BIIB078, ALS worsening in two participants who received 35 mg BIIB078, traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage in one participant who received 35 mg BIIB078, pulmonary embolism in one participant who received 60 mg BIIB078, and respiratory failure in three participants who received placebo. All deaths were assessed as not related to the study treatment by the reporting investigator. On the basis of these phase 1 study results, including secondary and exploratory findings showing no reduction in neurofilament levels and no benefit on clinical outcomes relative to the placebo cohort, BIIB078 clinical development has been discontinued. However, these results will be informative in furthering our understanding of the complex pathobiology of C9orf72-associated ALS. Biogen.

Nemolizumab with concomitant topical therapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2): results from two replicate, double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trials

Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor subunit α antagonist, inhibits the IL-31 pathway of itch and skin inflammation in atopic dermatitis. Two international phase 3 studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in atopic dermatitis. In this Article we report results for the 16-week initial treatment period of both trials. ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 were identical 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in adult and adolescent participants (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, associated pruritus, and inadequate response to topical steroids. Participants were enrolled from 281 clinics, hospitals, and academic centres in 22 countries across both trials, and were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously (baseline loading dose 60 mg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI; ie, TCS-TCI background treatment). Randomisation was done via interactive response technology and stratified by baseline disease and pruritus severity. Study staff and participants were masked throughout the study, with outcome assessors masked until database lock. Coprimary endpoints at week 16 post-baseline were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 [clear skin] or 1 [almost clear skin] with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline) and at least 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline (EASI-75 response). Outcome rates were compared between groups with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for randomisation strata. The key secondary endpoints were the proportion of participants with Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score improvement of at least 4 points at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 16; PP-NRS score below 2 at weeks 4 and 16; Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; EASI-75 response plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; and IGA success plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis; safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of nemolizumab or placebo. Both studies are completed (ClinicalTrials.gov: ARCADIA 1, NCT03985943 and ARCADIA 2, NCT03989349). Between Aug 9, 2019, and Nov 2, 2022, 1728 participants were enrolled across both trials: 1142 were allocated to nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI (620 in ARCADIA 1 and 522 in ARCADIA 2) and 586 to placebo plus TCS-TCI (321 in ARCADIA 1 and 265 in ARCADIA 2). ARCADIA 1 included 500 (53%) male participants and 441 (47%) female participants, and ARCADIA 2 included 381 (48%) male participants and 406 (52%) female participants. Mean age ranged from 33·3 (SD 15·6) years to 35·2 (17·0) years across the treatment groups. Both trials met the coprimary endpoints; at week 16, a greater proportion of participants receiving nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI versus placebo plus TCS-TCI had IGA success (ARCADIA 1: 221 [36%] of 620 vs 79 [25%] of 321, adjusted percentage difference 11·5% [97·5% CI 4·7-18·3], p=0·0003; ARCADIA 2: 197 [38%] of 522 vs 69 [26%] of 265, adjusted difference 12·2% [4·6-19·8], p=0·0006) and an EASI-75 response (ARCADIA 1: 270 [44%] vs 93 [29%], adjusted difference 14·9% [7·8-22·0], p<0·0001; ARCADIA 2: 220 [42%] vs 80 [30%], adjusted difference 12·5% [4·6-20·3], p=0·0006). Significant benefits were observed with nemolizumab for all key secondary endpoints including improvement in itch, as early as week 1, and sleep improvement by week 16. The safety profile was similar between nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI and placebo plus TCS-TCI. In the safety sets, 306 (50%) of 616 participants (ARCADIA 1) and 215 (41%) of 519 participants (ARCADIA 2) who received nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in six [1%] and 13 [3%], respectively); and 146 (45%) of 321 (ARCADIA 1) and 117 (44%) of 263 (ARCADIA 2) who received placebo plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in four [1%] and three [1%], respectively). Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events possibly related to nemolizumab were reported in five (1%) participants in ARCADIA 2. No deaths occurred. Nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI was efficacious and showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and itch in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of current therapies if approved. Galderma.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an adult pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, V116 (STRIDE-3): a randomised, double-blind, active comparator controlled, international phase 3 trial.

The same pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) have been used in adults and children in many settings. Differences in the epidemiology of pneumococcal disease between populations necessitates an adult-specific PCV. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of V116, an investigational 21-valent PCV designed for adults. This randomised, double-blind, active comparator controlled, international phase 3 trial enrolled adults with or without stable chronic medical conditions at 112 clinical sites in 11 countries or territories. Random assignment was performed using a central electronic interactive response technology system. Cohort 1 (≥50 years) was stratified by age (50-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years) and randomised 1:1 to receive one intramuscular dose of V116, or the active comparator, PCV20. Cohort 2 (18-49 years) was randomised 2:1 to receive one intramuscular dose of V116 or PCV20. Pneumococcal serotype-specific opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) and IgG responses were measured before (day 1) and after vaccination (day 30). Four primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed per-protocol. First, in cohort 1, non-inferiority of V116 to PCV20 was tested using serotype-specific OPA geometric mean titres (GMT) ratios for serotypes common to both vaccines; the lower bound of the 95% CI had to be greater than 0·5 for non-inferiority. Second, superiority of V116 to PCV20 was tested for OPA GMT ratios for the serotypes unique to V116; the lower bound of the 95% CI had to be greater than 2·0 for superiority. Third, superiority of V116 to PCV20 was evaluated by the proportions of participants with a four-fold or greater rise from day 1 to day 30 for serotypes unique to V116; the lower bound of the 95% CI of the differences in proportions (V116 - PCV20) had to be greater than 10% for superiority. Finally, in cohort 2, immunobridging was assessed for all 21 serotypes in V116 for adults aged 18-49 years to 50-64 years; the lower bound of the 95% CI for the OPA GMTs had to be greater than 0·5 for non-inferiority. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned participants who received study vaccine. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with solicited injection site and solicited systemic adverse events until day 5 and vaccine-related serious adverse events up to 6 months after vaccination. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05425732). Between July 13, and Nov 22, 2022, 2754 individuals were screened and 2663 participants were randomly assigned. 2656 individuals were vaccinated (1179 in V116 cohort 1; 1177 in PCV20 cohort 1; 200 in V116 cohort 2; and 100 in PCV20 cohort 2). V116 met non-inferiority criteria compared with PCV20 for the ten serotypes common to both vaccines at day 30 in cohort 1 (p<0·0001 for each common serotype). V116 met superiority criteria compared with PCV20 in cohort 1 for ten of the 11 serotypes unique to V116 at day 30 (OPA GMT ratio: p<0·0001 for all unique serotypes except 15C, which was p=0·41; four-fold or greater rise in OPA from day 1-30: p<0·0001 for all serotypes except 15C, which was p=0·67). Immune responses in V116 participants aged 18-49 years were non-inferior compared with V116 participants aged 50-64 years for all V116 serotypes (p<0·0001 for all V116 serotypes). In cohort 1, 685 (58·2%) of participants in V116, and 778 (66·2%) of participants in PCV20 reported one or more adverse event. In cohort 2, 164 (82·0%) participants in V116 and 79 participants (79·0%) in PCV20 reported one or more adverse event. Six deaths were reported, all in cohort 1, none of which were considered vaccine-related (in V116: one due to sepsis, one due to cerebrovascular accident, one due to myocardial infarction, and one due to hepatic cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy; in PCV20: one due to cardiac arrest and one due to abdominal abscess). There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events. V116 was non-inferior to PCV20 for the ten serotypes common to both vaccines and superior to PCV20 for all serotypes unique to V116, except for 15C. Immune responses successfully immunobridged between younger and older adults for all serotypes in V116. V116 was generally well tolerated with safety profile similar to PCV20. Merck Sharp & Dohme, subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD).

Once-daily upadacitinib versus placebo in adults with extensive non-segmental vitiligo: a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition is a promising approach for treating vitiligo. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective JAK inhibitor, in adults with non-segmental vitiligo. This was a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study completed at 33 clinical centres in the United States, Canada, France, and Japan. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with non-segmental vitiligo and had a Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI) ≥0.5 and a Total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI) ≥5. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1:1) using an interactive response technology to receive upadacitinib 6mg (UPA6), upadacitinib 11mg (UPA11), upadacitinib 22mg (UPA22), or placebo (PBO; preassigned to switch to either UPA11 or UPA22 in period 2) once daily for 24 weeks (period 1). For weeks 24-52 (period 2), patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib continued their treatment, and patients receiving PBO switched to their preassigned upadacitinib dose in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in F-VASI at week 24. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was examined in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04927975. Between June 16, 2021, and June 27, 2022, 185 patients (including 115 [62%] who were female and 70 [38%] who were male) were randomly assigned to UPA6 (n=49), UPA11 (n=47), UPA22 (n=43), or PBO (n=46). At week 24, the LS mean difference versus PBO in the percent change from baseline in F-VASI was-7.60 (95% CI-22.18 to 6.97; p=0.3037) for UPA6,-21.27 (95% CI-36.02 to-6.52; p=0.0051) for UPA11, and-19.60 (95% CI-35.04 to-4.16; p=0.0132) for UPA22. The LS mean difference versus PBO in the percent change from baseline in T-VASI was-7.45 (95% CI-16.86 to 1.96; p=0.1198) for UPA6,-10.84 (95% CI-20.37 to-1.32; p=0.0259) for UPA11 and-14.27 (95% CI-24.24 to-4.30; p=0.0053) for UPA22. Ongoing treatment with upadacitinib induced continuous skin repigmentation over time without reaching a plateau through week 52. The rates for study drug discontinuation and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher in the UPA22 group than in the UPA11 and UPA6 groups. Eight serious TEAEs, including one death of unknown cause and one case of infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma, were reported through 52 weeks; only two serious TEAEs (coronary artery arteriosclerosis [UPA6 (n=1)] and non-fatal ischemic stroke [UPA11 (n=1)]) were deemed by the investigator to have a reasonable possibility of being related to study drug. The one case of breast cancer in the UPA11 group was deemed unrelated to study drug, and the one death of unknown cause in the UPA22 group was reviewed and adjudicated and was deemed to be unrelated to study drug. The most common TEAEs were COVID-19, headache, acne, and fatigue. No new safety signals were observed. Upadacitinib monotherapy led to substantial repigmentation of both facial and total body vitiligo lesions and may offer an effective treatment option for adults with extensive non-segmental vitiligo. Based on these findings, upadacitinib 15mg is being investigated in adults and adolescents with non-segmental vitiligo in an ongoing phase 3 randomised controlled trial. AbbVie Inc.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE plus long-acting octreotide versus high‑dose long-acting octreotide for the treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced grade 2–3, well-differentiated, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-2): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study

There are currently no standard first-line treatment options for patients with higher grade 2-3, well-differentiated, advanced, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE (177Lu-Dotatate) treatment. NETTER-2 was an open-label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) with newly diagnosed higher grade 2 (Ki67 ≥10% and ≤20%) and grade 3 (Ki67 >20% and ≤55%), somatostatin receptor-positive (in all target lesions), advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from 45 centres across nine countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. We used interactive response technologies to randomly assign (2:1) patients to receive four cycles (cycle interval was 8 weeks ± 1 week) of intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate plus intramuscular octreotide 30 mg long-acting repeatable (LAR) then octreotide 30 mg LAR every 4 weeks (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose octreotide 60 mg LAR every 4 weeks (control group), stratified by neuroendocrine tumour grade (2 vs 3) and origin (pancreas vs other). Tumour assessments were done at baseline, week 16, and week 24, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded, independent, central radiology assessment. We did the primary analysis at 101 progression-free survival events as the final progression-free survival analysis. NETTER-2 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03972488, and is active and not recruiting. Between Jan 22, 2020, and Oct 13, 2022, we screened 261 patients, 35 (13%) of whom were excluded. We randomly assigned 226 (87%) patients (121 [54%] male and 105 [46%] female) to the 177Lu-Dotatate group (n=151 [67%]) and control group (n=75 [33%]). Median progression-free survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·7-13·8) in the control group and 22·8 months (19·4-not estimated) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group (stratified hazard ratio 0·276 [0·182-0·418]; p<0·0001). During the treatment period, adverse events (of any grade) occurred in 136 (93%) of 147 treated patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 69 (95%) of 73 treated patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths during the treatment period. First-line 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR significantly extended median progression-free survival (by 14 months) in patients with grade 2 or 3 advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 177Lu-Dotatate should be considered a new standard of care in first-line therapy in this population. Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company.

Garadacimab for hereditary angioedema attack prevention: long-term efficacy, quality of life, and safety data from a phase 2, randomised, open-label extension study

Garadacimab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody targeting activated factor XII. This study evaluated long-term efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety data for garadacimab in adults with hereditary angioedema. This global phase 2 study comprised a treatment period 1 (TP1: 12 weeks, double-blind, placebo-controlled) and a treatment period 2 (TP2: ≥44-week open-label extension). Patients aged 18-65 years with clinically confirmed hereditary angioedema were eligible. In TP1, 32 patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous garadacimab (75 mg, 200 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks (once monthly). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology via block randomisation (block sizes 1-4). Subsequently, six additional patients in TP1 were assigned to open-label garadacimab 400 mg every 2 weeks. At the start of TP2, patients were re-randomised (if receiving placebo, garadacimab 75 mg, or garadacimab 400 mg) or continued to receive garadacimab 200 mg or garadacimab 600 mg once monthly. After a protocol amendment on March 20, 2020, patients originally assigned to the 600 mg dose were down-titrated to 200 mg at their next visit. The primary endpoint (published previously) was monthly attack rate for patients receiving 200 mg or 600 mg garadacimab in TP1 in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we assessed the impact of garadacimab on patient-reported and investigator-reported outcomes and HRQoL as well as long-term efficacy and safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03712228, and is completed. Of 54 patients screened between Oct 29, 2018, and Aug 28, 2019, 32 randomised and six open-label patients completed TP1 and entered TP2 (20 in the garadacimab 200 mg group; 18 in the garadacimab 600 mg group; total 38 patients). Median age was 39·0 years (IQR 27·0-53·0), and 21 patients (55%) were female and 17 (45%) were male. In TP2, the median garadacimab exposure was 87·9 weeks (IQR 50·0-106·6) in the garadacimab 200 mg group and 44·1 weeks (24·1-56·1) in the garadacimab 600 mg group. Median monthly attack rates were 0·0 (IQR 0·0-0·1) in the garadacimab 200 mg group and 0·1 (0·0-0·4) in the garadacimb 600 mg group. Median reduction in monthly attack rate versus run-in was 100% (IQR 98-100) with garadacimab 200 mg. HRQoL improvements observed during TP1 with garadacimab were sustained throughout TP2. TP2 safety signals were consistent with TP1. Two patients experienced serious adverse events of diverticular perforation and asthma (not garadacimab-related). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. The most common adverse events were headache (nine of 38, 24%) and abdominal pain (seven of 38, 18%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Once-monthly garadacimab for more than 2 years in patients with hereditary angioedema was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing monthly attack rate and improving HRQoL. These results reveal the potential of long-term prophylactic treatment with 200 mg once-monthly garadacimab towards complete disease control of patients with hereditary angioedema. CSL Behring.

Seralutinib in adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (TORREY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

Morbidity and mortality in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remain high. Activation of platelet-derived growth factor receptor, colony stimulating factor 1 receptor, and mast or stem cell growth factor receptor kinases stimulates inflammatory, proliferative, and fibrotic pathways driving pulmonary vascular remodelling in PAH. Seralutinib, an inhaled kinase inhibitor, targets these pathways. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of seralutinib in patients with PAH receiving standard background therapy. The TORREY trial was a phase 2, randomised, multicentre, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with PAH from 40 hospital and community sites were randomly assigned 1:1 via interactive response technologies to receive seralutinib (60 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, then increased to 90 mg twice daily as tolerated) or placebo by dry powder inhaler twice daily for 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; <800 dyne·s/cm5 and ≥800 dyne·s/cm5). Patients were eligible if classified as WHO Group 1 PH (PAH), WHO Functional Class II or III, with a PVR of 400 dyne·s/cm5 or more, and a 6 min walk distance of between 150 m and 550 m. The primary endpoint was change in PVR from baseline to 24 weeks. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted in randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population). Safety analyses included all patients who received the study drug. TORREY was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04456998) and EudraCT (2019-002669-37) and is completed. From Nov 12, 2020, to April 20, 2022, 151 patients were screened for eligibility, and following exclusions, 86 adults receiving PAH background therapy were randomly assigned to seralutinib (n=44; four male, 40 female) or placebo (n=42; four male, 38 female), and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At baseline, treatment groups were balanced except for a higher representation of WHO Functional Class II patients in the seralutinib group. The least squares mean change from baseline to week 24 in PVR was 21·2 dyne·s/cm5 (95% CI -37·4 to 79·8) for the placebo group and -74·9 dyne·s/cm5 (-139·7 to -10·2) for the seralutinib group. The least squares mean difference between the seralutinib and placebo groups for change in PVR was -96·1 dyne·s/cm5 (95% CI -183·5 to -8·8; p=0·03). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event in both treatment groups was cough: 16 (38%) of 42 patients in the placebo group; 19 (43%) of 44 patients in the seralutinib group. Treatment with inhaled seralutinib significantly decreased PVR, meeting the primary endpoint of the study among patients receiving background therapy for PAH. Gossamer Bio.

Safety and efficacy of givinostat in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (EPIDYS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common childhood muscular dystrophy, is caused by dystrophin deficiency. Preclinical and phase 2 study data have suggested that givinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, might help to counteract the effects of this deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of givinostat in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 41 tertiary care sites in 11 countries. Eligible participants were ambulant, male, and aged at least 6 years, had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, completed two four-stair climb assessments with a mean of 8 s or less (≤1 s variance), had a time-to-rise of at least 3 s but less than 10 s, and had received systemic corticosteroids for at least 6 months. Participating boys were randomly assigned (2:1, allocated according to a list generated by the interactive response technology provider) to receive either oral givinostat or matching placebo twice a day for 72 weeks, stratified by concomitant steroid use. Boys, investigators, and site and sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment. The dose was flexible, based on weight, and was reduced if not tolerated. Boys were divided into two groups on the basis of their baseline vastus lateralis fat fraction (VLFF; measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy): group A comprised boys with a VLFF of more than 5% but no more than 30%, whereas group B comprised boys with a VLFF of 5% or less, or more than 30%. The primary endpoint compared the effects of givinostat and placebo on the change in results of the four-stair climb assessment between baseline and 72 weeks, in the intention-to-treat, group A population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned boys who received at least one dose of study drug. When the first 50 boys in group A completed 12 months of treatment, an interim futility assessment was conducted, after which the sample size was adapted using masked data from the four-stair climb assessments. Furthermore, the starting dose of givinostat was reduced following a protocol amendment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851797, and is complete. Between June 6, 2017, and Feb 22, 2022, 359 boys were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 179 were enrolled into the study (median age 9·8 years [IQR 8·1-11·0]), all of whom were randomly assigned (118 to receive givinostat and 61 to receive placebo); 170 (95%) boys completed the study. Of the 179 boys enrolled, 120 (67%) were in group A (81 givinostat and 39 placebo); of these, 114 (95%) completed the study. For participants in group A, comparing the results of the four-stair climb assessment at 72 weeks and baseline, the geometric least squares mean ratio was 1·27 (95% CI 1·17-1·37) for boys receiving givinostat and 1·48 (1·32-1·66) for those receiving placebo (ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·745-0·989; p=0·035). The most common adverse events in the givinostat group were diarrhoea (43 [36%] of 118 boys vs 11 [18%] of 61 receiving placebo) and vomiting (34 [29%] vs 8 [13%]); no treatment-related deaths occurred. Among ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, results of the four-stair climb assessment worsened in both groups over the study period; however, the decline was significantly smaller with givinostat than with placebo. The dose of givinostat was reduced after an interim safety analysis, but no new safety signals were reported. An ongoing extension study is evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of givinostat in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Italfarmaco.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed. ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed. Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group. Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population. Allergan (now AbbVie).

Efficacy and safety of extended duration letermovir prophylaxis in recipients of haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation at risk of cytomegalovirus infection: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

In a pivotal phase 3 trial of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis with letermovir for up to 100 days after allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), 12% of participants developed clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection after letermovir was discontinued. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extending the duration of letermovir prophylaxis for clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection from 100 days to 200 days following HSCT. We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 32 sites in six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the USA). Cytomegalovirus‑seropositive HSCT recipients (aged ≥18 years) who had received letermovir prophylaxis for up to 100 days following HSCT and who remained at high risk of late clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (with no previous history of clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection, defined as initiation of pre-emptive therapy for documented cytomegalovirus viraemia, onset of cytomegalovirus end-organ disease, or both) were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either an additional 100 days (ie, a total of 200 days; letermovir group) of oral or intravenous letermovir 480 mg once daily, adjusted to 240 mg once daily for participants on cyclosporin A, or 100 days of a placebo comparator for letermovir (ie, a total of 100 days of letermovir; placebo group), following HSCT. Randomisation was done using a central interactive response technology system, stratified by study centre and haploidentical donor (yes or no). Participants, investigators, and sponsor personnel were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants from randomisation to week 28 (200 days after HSCT) with clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection, analysed using the full analysis set population (ie, those who received at least one dose of study intervention). Safety was analysed in all participants as treated (ie, those who received at least one dose according to the study intervention they were assigned to). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03930615, and is complete. Between June 21, 2019, and March 16, 2022, 255 patients were screened for eligibility and 220 (86%) were randomly assigned (145 [66%] in the letermovir group and 75 [34%] in the placebo group). Between randomisation and week 28, four (3%) of 144 participants in the letermovir group and 14 (19%) of 74 in the placebo group developed clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (treatment difference -16·1% [95% CI -25·8 to -6·5]; p=0·0005). The most common adverse events among participants in the letermovir group versus the placebo group were graft-versus-host disease (43 [30%] vs 23 [31%]), diarrhoea (17 [12%] vs nine [12%]), nausea (16 [11%] vs 13 [18%]), pyrexia (13 [9%] vs nine [12%]), and decreased appetite (six [4%] vs nine [12%]). The most frequently reported serious adverse events were recurrent acute myeloid leukaemia (six [4%] vs none) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs two [3%]). No deaths were considered to be drug-related by the investigator. Extending the duration of letermovir prophylaxis to 200 days following HSCT is efficacious and safe in reducing the incidence of late clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection in patients at risk. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC.

Immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of a self-amplifying RNA COVID-19 vaccine (ARCT-154) versus BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Licensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccines require booster doses to sustain SARS-CoV-2-specific responses, creating the need for novel, broadly immunogenic vaccines. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of ARCT-154-a self-amplifying mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant-with the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty; Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine when administered as a fourth-dose booster. This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial, conducted at 11 outpatient clinical sites in Japan, enrolled healthy adults aged at least 18 years who had previously been immunised with two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 [Spikevax; Moderna]) followed by a third dose of BNT162b2 at least 3 months before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio using an Interactive Response Technology system with a block size of four, and with stratification by age (18-64 years or ≥65 years) and by interval since last COVID-19 vaccination (<5 months or ≥5 months), to receive either ARCT-154 or BNT162b2 as a fourth-dose booster via deltoid intramuscular injection. Participants and investigators assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The primary objective, measured in per-protocol set 1 (consisting of participants with no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who received their intended injection according to protocol), was to show that the immune response 28 days after the ARCT-154 vaccine was non-inferior to that of the BNT162b2 vaccine, measured in terms of both pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) ratios and seroresponse rates against the wild-type Wuhan-Hu-1 strain of SARS-CoV-2. Non-inferiority was declared when the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ARCT-154 to BNT162b2 GMT ratio exceeded 0·67, and when the lower limit for the difference in seroresponse rates exceeded -10%. Key secondary endpoints included the immune response against the omicron BA.4/5 subvariant, which was assessed for non-inferiority and superiority in per-protocol set 1. Safety was assessed in the full analysis set. This study was registered on the Japan Registry for Clinical Trials, jRCT 2071220080, and is ongoing. Between Dec 13, 2022, and Feb 25, 2023, we enrolled and randomly assigned 828 participants to receive ARCT-154 (n=420) or BNT162b2 (n=408) vaccines as a fourth-dose booster. In per-protocol set 1, the GMTs of surrogate neutralising antibodies induced against the Wuhan-Hu-1 SARS-CoV-2 strain in the ARCT-154 group (5641 [95% CI 4321-7363]) were non-inferior to those in the BNT162b2 group (3934 [2993-5169]) when measured at 28 days after boosting, with a GMT ratio of 1·43 (95% CI 1·26-1·63). Seroresponse rates were 65·2% (95% CI 60·2-69·9) in the ARCT-154 group versus 51·6% (46·4-56·8) in the BNT162b2 group, a difference of 13·6% (95% CI 6·8-20·5). GMTs against the omicron BA.4/5 variant on day 29 were 2551 (1687-3859) in the ARCT-154 group and 1958 (1281-2993) in the BNT162b2 group-a GMT ratio of 1·30 (1·07-1·58)-with seroresponse rates of 69·9% (65·0-74·4) and 58·0% (52·8-63·1). Both boosters were equally well tolerated. No treatment-related deaths were reported, nor were there severe or serious adverse events considered to be causally associated related to study vaccination. One serious adverse event, a foot deformity reported in a participant in the BNT162b2 group, was observed but determined not to have a causal relationship to the study vaccination. One severe adverse event, a case of abnormal hepatic function in the ARCT-154 group, was considered to be related to study vaccine. Adverse events of special interest for detection of myocarditis and pericarditis included chest pain (one case in the ARCT-154 group and three cases in the BNT162b2 group) and shortness of breath (two cases in the BNT162b2 group), all of which were considered to have a reasonable possibility of being related to vaccination. Local reactions were reported by 398 (95%) of 420 participants receiving the ARCT-154 vaccine and 395 (97%) of 408 participants receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine, and solicited systemic adverse events by 276 (66%) of those receiving the ARCT-154 vaccine and 255 (63%) of those receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine. Adverse events were mainly mild in severity, occurring and resolving within 3-4 days after vaccination. In adults who had previously received three doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, immune responses 28 days after an ARCT-154 booster dose were non-inferior to those observed after a BNT162b2 booster dose for the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain of SARS-CoV-2 and superior for the Omicron BA.4/5 variant. Increased immune responses at 28 days might provide increased likelihood of protection against these strains during this period and could also result in longer duration of protection. Further studies will assess the immunogenicity induced against more recent SARS-CoV-2 variants. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. For the Japanese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Dose–response effects on HbA1c and bodyweight reduction of survodutide, a dual glucagon/GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo and open-label semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial

Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this study was to assess the dose–response effects of the subcutaneous glucagon receptor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor dual agonist survodutide (BI 456906) on HbA1c levels and bodyweight reduction.MethodsThis Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, conducted in clinical research centres, assessed survodutide in participants aged 18–75 years with type 2 diabetes, an HbA1c level of 53–86 mmol/mol (7.0–10.0%) and a BMI of 25–50 kg/m2 on a background of metformin therapy. Participants were randomised via interactive response technology to receive survodutide (up to 0.3, 0.9, 1.8 or 2.7 mg once weekly [qw; dose group (DG) 1–4, respectively] or 1.2 or 1.8 mg twice weekly [DG 5 and 6, respectively]), placebo or semaglutide (up to 1.0 mg qw). Participants and all those involved in the trial conduct/analysis were blinded; the semaglutide arm was open-label. The primary endpoint was absolute change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks’ treatment. The key secondary endpoint was relative change from baseline in bodyweight after 16 weeks’ treatment.ResultsA total of 413 participants were randomised (DG1, n=50; DG2, n=50; DG3, n=52; DG4, n=50; DG5, n=51; DG6, n=50; semaglutide, n=50; placebo, n=60). The full analysis set comprised 411 treated participants (DG6, n=49; placebo, n=59). Adjusted mean (95% CI) HbA1c decreased from baseline (mean ± SD 64.7±9.2 mmol/mol [8.07±0.84%] after 16 weeks’ treatment: DG1 (n=41), −9.92 mmol/mol (−12.27, −7.56; −0.91% [−1.12, −0.69]); DG2 (n=46), −15.95 mmol/mol (−18.27, −13.63; −1.46% [−1.67, −1.25]); DG3 (n=36), −18.72 mmol/mol (−21.15, −16.29; −1.71% [−1.94, −1.49]); DG4 (n=33), −17.01 mmol/mol (−19.59, −14.43; −1.56% [−1.79, −1.32]); DG5 (n=44), −17.84 mmol/mol (−20.18, −15.51; −1.63% [−1.85, −1.42]); DG6 (n=36), −18.38 mmol/mol (−20.90, −15.87; −1.68% [−1.91, −1.45]). The mean reduction in HbA1c was similar with low-dose survodutide (DG2: −15.95 mmol/mol [−1.46%]; n=46) and semaglutide (−16.07 mmol/mol [−1.47%]; n=45). Mean (95% CI) bodyweight decreased dose-dependently up to −8.7% (−10.1, −7.3; DG6, n=37); survodutide ≥1.8 mg qw produced greater bodyweight reductions than semaglutide (−5.3% [−6.6, −4.1]; n=45). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 77.8% of survodutide-treated participants (mainly gastrointestinal), 52.5% receiving placebo and 52.0% receiving semaglutide.Conclusions/interpretationSurvodutide reduced HbA1c levels and bodyweight after 16 weeks’ treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes. Dose-related gastrointestinal AEs could be mitigated with slower dose escalations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153929 and EudraCT 2019-002390-60.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.Graphical

Addition of danicopan to ravulizumab or eculizumab in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria and clinically significant extravascular haemolysis (ALPHA): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

Symptoms of anaemia due to clinically significant extravascular haemolysis can affect patients with paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) treated with C5 inhibitors (ravulizumab or eculizumab). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of danicopan (ALXN2040), an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, as add-on therapy to ravulizumab or eculizumab in patients with PNH and clinically significant extravascular haemolysis. ALPHA is an ongoing, international, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating danicopan as add-on therapy to ravulizumab or eculizumab. Eligible patients were adults (age ≥18 years) with PNH and clinically significant extravascular haemolysis (haemoglobin ≤9·5 g/dL; absolute reticulocyte count ≥120 × 109/L) on ravulizumab or eculizumab for at least 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to danicopan or placebo added to ravulizumab or eculizumab for 12 weeks using an interactive response technology system. Randomisation was stratified based on transfusion history, haemoglobin, and patients enrolled from Japan. The initial oral danicopan dose was 150 mg three times a day; escalation to 200 mg three times a day was permitted based on clinical response. The infusion dose level of eculizumab (every 2 weeks) ranged from 900 mg to 1500 mg, and for ravulizumab (monthly or every 8 weeks) ranged from 3000 mg to 3600 mg. The primary endpoint was change in haemoglobin concentration from baseline to week 12. Here we present the protocol-prespecified interim analysis, planned when approximately 75% of participants were randomly assigned to treatment and completed or discontinued at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04469465). Individuals were randomly assigned between Dec 16, 2020, and Aug 29, 2022. At data cutoff (June 28, 2022), 73 individuals were randomly assigned, received treatment, and were analysed for safety (danicopan, n=49; placebo, n=24). The protocol-prespecified interim efficacy analysis set included the first 63 participants (danicopan, n=42; placebo, n=21). At week 12, danicopan plus ravulizumab or eculizumab increased haemoglobin versus placebo plus ravulizumab or eculizumab (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline: danicopan, 2·94 g/dL [95% CI 2·52 to 3·36]; placebo, 0·50 g/dL [-0·13 to 1·12]; LSM difference, 2·44 g/dL [1·69 to 3·20]; p<0·0001). Grade 3 adverse events in the danicopan group were increased alanine aminotransferase (two [4%] of 49 patients), leukopenia (one [2%]), neutropenia (two [4%]), cholecystitis (one [2%]), COVID-19 (one [2%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase (one [2%]), and increased blood pressure (one [2%]), and in the placebo group were anaemia (one [4%] of 24 patients), thrombocytopenia (one [4%]), and asthenia (one [4%]). The serious adverse events reported in the danicopan group were cholecystitis (one [2%] patient) and COVID-19 (one [2%]) and in the placebo group were anaemia and abdominal pain, both in one (4%) patient. There were no serious adverse events related to study drug or deaths reported in the study. These primary efficacy and safety results show that danicopan as add-on treatment to ravulizumab or eculizumab significantly improved haemoglobin concentrations at week 12 with no new safety concerns, suggesting an improved benefit-risk profile in patients with PNH and clinically significant extravascular haemolysis. Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.

Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials

Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies. PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete. Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab. In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies. Novartis Pharma.

Safety and efficacy of multimatrix mesalamine in paediatric patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind study

Previous studies have demonstrated the tolerability and efficacy of multimatrix mesalamine in inducing and maintaining remission in adults with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of low-dose and high-dose once-daily multimatrix mesalamine in children and adolescents with mild-to-moderate UC or those in remission. This prospective, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 study (8-week double-blind acute [DBA] phase; 26-week double-blind maintenance [DBM] phase; and an additional 8-week, open-label acute [OLA] phase) was conducted in 33 sites across North America, Europe, and the Middle East between December 12, 2014, and November 28, 2018. Eligible patients aged 5-17 years and weighing 18-90kg were randomised 1:1 to either low (900-2400mg) or high (1800-4800mg) oral doses of multimatrix mesalamine once daily, stratified by body weight. Interactive response technology was used for randomisation. The primary efficacy outcome was to estimate the clinical response of multimatrix mesalamine (two doses) in different weight groups. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in the safety analysis set (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02093663; Study completed). Overall, 107 patients were randomised into the DBA (n=54) or DBM phase (n=88; directly or after completing the double-blind or OLA phases); the overall safety analysis set included 105 patients. In the DBA phase, the high-dose group (n=17; 65.4%) achieved a higher clinical response rate than the low-dose (n=10; 37.0%) group; difference 28.3% (95% CI: 2.5-54.2; p=0.039), odds ratio (OR) 3.21 (95% CI: 1.04-9.88). In the DBM phase at Week 26, similar proportions of patients maintained clinical response in the low-dose (n=23; 54.8%) and high-dose (n=24; 53.3%) groups: OR 0.99 (0.42-2.34); p=0.981. Overall, 246 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 73 patients (69.5%); 23 TEAEs in 14 patients (13.3%) were considered related to the study drug. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Our findings suggested that the benefit-risk ratio of once-daily multimatrix mesalamine in paediatric patients was favourable and comparable with that reported in adults with mild-to-moderate UC. Shire Development LLC, a Takeda company.

Efficacy and safety of zapnometinib in hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 (RESPIRE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Zapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900mg on Day 1; 600mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59). The trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n=50; placebo: n=51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p=0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p=0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p=0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p=0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication. These results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications. Atriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

A first-in-human, open-label Phase 1b and a randomised, double-blind Phase 2a clinical trial in recent-onset type 1 diabetes with AG019 as monotherapy and in combination with teplizumab

Aims/hypothesisWe hypothesised that islet beta cell antigen presentation in the gut along with a tolerising cytokine would lead to antigen-specific tolerance in type 1 diabetes. We evaluated this in a parallel open-label Phase 1b study using oral AG019, food-grade Lactococcus lactis bacteria genetically modified to express human proinsulin and human IL-10, as a monotherapy and in a parallel, randomised, double-blind Phase 2a study using AG019 in combination with teplizumab.MethodsAdults (18–42 years) and adolescents (12–17 years) with type 1 diabetes diagnosed within 150 days were enrolled, with documented evidence of at least one autoantibody and a stimulated peak C-peptide level >0.2 nmol/l. Participants were allocated to interventions using interactive response technology. We treated 42 people aged 12–42 years with recent-onset type 1 diabetes, 24 with Phase 1b monotherapy (open-label) and 18 with Phase 2a combination therapy. In the Phase 2a study, after treatment of the first two open-label participants, all people involved were blinded to group assignment, except for the Data Safety Monitoring Board members and the unblinded statistician. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability based on the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, collected up to 6 months post treatment initiation. The secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, based on AG019 detection in blood and faeces, and pharmacodynamic activity. Metabolic and immune endpoints included stimulated C-peptide levels during a mixed meal tolerance test, HbA1c levels, insulin use, and antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses using an activation-induced marker assay and pooled tetramers, respectively.ResultsData from 24 Phase 1b participants and 18 Phase 2a participants were analysed. No serious adverse events were reported and none of the participants discontinued AG019 due to treatment-emergent adverse events. No systemic exposure to AG019 bacteria, proinsulin or human IL-10 was demonstrated. In AG019 monotherapy-treated adults, metabolic variables were stabilised up to 6 months (C-peptide, insulin use) or 12 months (HbA1c) post treatment initiation. In participants treated with AG019/teplizumab combination therapy, all measured metabolic variables stabilised or improved up to 12 months and CD8+ T cells with a partially exhausted phenotype were significantly increased at 6 months. Circulating preproinsulin-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were detected before and after treatment, with a reduction in the frequency of preproinsulin-specific CD8+ T cells after treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy.Conclusions/interpretationOral delivery of AG019 was well tolerated and safe as monotherapy and in combination with teplizumab. AG019 was not shown to interfere with the safety profile of teplizumab and may have additional biological effects, including changes in preproinsulin-specific T cells. These preliminary data support continuing studies with this agent alone and in combination with teplizumab or other systemic immunotherapies in type 1 diabetes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03751007, EudraCT 2017-002871-24FundingThis study was funded by Precigen ActoBioGraphical

Efficacy and safety of single-agent belantamab mafodotin versus pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised study

Multiple myeloma remains incurable, and heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory disease have few good treatment options. Belantamab mafodotin showed promising results in a phase 2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at second or later relapse and a manageable adverse event profile. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin in a phase 3 setting. In the DREAMM-3 open-label phase 3 study, conducted at 108 sites across 18 countries, adult patients were enrolled who had confirmed multiple myeloma (International Myeloma Working Group criteria), ECOG performance status of 0-2, had received two or more previous lines of therapy, including two or more consecutive cycles of both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and progressed on, or within, 60 days of completion of the previous treatment. Participants were randomly allocated using a central interactive response technology system (2:1) to receive belantamab mafodotin 2·5 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days, or oral pomalidomide 4·0 mg daily (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40·0 mg (20·0 mg if >75 years) weekly in a 28-day cycle. Randomisation was stratified by previous anti-CD38 therapy, International Staging System stage, and number of previous therapies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients who were randomly allocated. The safety population included all randomly allocated patients who received one or more doses of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04162210, and is ongoing. Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 12, 2022. Patients were recruited between April 2, 2020, and April 18, 2022. As of September, 2022, 325 patients were randomly allocated (218 to the belantamab mafodotin group and 107 to the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group); 184 (57%) of 325 were male and 141 (43%) of 325 were female, 246 (78%) of 316 were White. Median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). Median follow-up was 11·5 months (5·5-17·6) for belantamab mafodotin and 10·8 months (5·6-17·1) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median progression-free survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 6·4-14·5) for belantamab mafodotin and 7·0 months (4·6-10·6) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 1·03 [0·72-1·47]; p=0·56). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (49 [23%] of 217) and anaemia (35 [16%]) for belantamab mafodotin, and neutropenia (34 [33%] of 102) and anaemia (18[18%]) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Serious adverse events occurred in 94 (43%) of 217 and 40 (39%) of 102 patients, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the belantamab mafodotin group and one (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group due to sepsis. Belantamab mafodotin was not associated with statistically improved progression-free survival compared with standard-of-care, but there were no new safety signals associated with its use. Belantamab mafodotin is being tested in combination regimens for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. GSK (study number 207495).

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 μg of ancestral [D614] and 5 μg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment. Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases. The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted. Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in patients responding to 8 week induction therapy (U-ACHIEVE Maintenance): overall results from the randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 maintenance study

Upadacitinib is an oral, selective, and reversible JAK inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in a phase 2b induction trial, two phase 3 induction trials (U-ACHIEVE Induction and U-ACCOMPLISH), and a primary analysis of the first 451 patients entering a subsequent maintenance trial (U-ACHIEVE Maintenance). Here, we present overall results from the entire U-ACHIEVE Maintenance population. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 maintenance study done across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 251 clinical centres in 44 countries, patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (adapted Mayo score 5-9, centrally assessed endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3) for 90 days or more were randomly assigned (2:1) to double-blind upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo induction therapy in the phase 2b induction trial or two phase 3 induction trials. Patients with a clinical response per adapted Mayo score after 8 weeks were randomly reassigned (1:1:1) using web-based interactive response technology to 52 week double-blind maintenance therapy with placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg, or upadacitinib 30 mg once daily. Efficacy was analysed at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients randomly reassigned who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was clinical remission per adapted Mayo score. Safety through week 52 was assessed with exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs; events per 100 patient-years) in upadacitinib 45 mg once daily 8-week induction responders who were enrolled per protocol for 44-week or 52-week maintenance therapy (ie, the intention-to-treat population plus patients who received up to 44 weeks' maintenance therapy under earlier protocol amendments) and received at least one dose of study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 and is complete. Between Sept 3, 2016, and Jan 14, 2021 987 patients received the upadacitinib 45 mg once daily induction therapy in the phase 2b trial, U-ACHIEVE Induction, or U-ACCOMPLISH. 681 patients with a clinical response to the induction therapy (319 from U-ACHIEVE Induction, 341 from U-ACCOMPLISH, and 21 from the phase 2b induction trial) received placebo (n=223), upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=225), or upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (n=233) in U-ACHIEVE Maintenance and were included in this analysis. A greater proportion of patients achieved the primary endpoint with upadacitinib 15 mg (40·4%) and 30 mg once daily (53·6%) versus placebo (10·8%; both p<0·0001 vs placebo). For safety, 746 patients were analysed, representing 552·9 patient-years of exposure; the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were worsening of ulcerative colitis in nine (4%) patients with placebo, and COVID-19 pneumonia and cryptococcal pneumonia in two (1%) patients each with upadacitinib 30 mg once daily. Higher EAERs of the following treatment-emergent events of special interest were observed with upadacitinib versus placebo: herpes zoster (6·0 events per 100 patient-years with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and 7·3 events per 100 patient-years with upadacitinib 30 mg once daily vs none per 100 patient-years with placebo [12 and 16 vs no events, respectively), hepatic disorders (17·0 and 9·2 vs 5·9 events per 100 patient-years [34 and 20 vs eight events, respectively), creatine phosphokinase elevation (8·0 and 10·1 vs 3·7 events per 100 patient-years [16 and 22 vs five events], respectively), and neutropenia (5·5 and 8·7 vs 5·2 events per 100 patient-years [11 and 19 vs seven events], respectively). One (<1% of patients) adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event occurred with placebo and one (<1% of patients) with upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (EAERs 0·7 and 0·5 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). Two (1% of patients) venous thromboembolic events occurred with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and two (1% of patients) with upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (EAERs 1·0 and 0·9 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). All adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolic events with upadacitinib occurred in patients with relevant known risk factors. Consistent with the primary analysis done among a smaller population, both maintenance doses of upadacitinib showed a positive benefit-risk profile in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Upadacitinib represents an effective treatment option for this population, for whom a large unmet need persists. AbbVie.