Least-squares Mean Treatment Difference Research Articles

The effects of scaling and root planing plus home oral hygiene maintenance in Stage I/II periodontitis population: A 24-week randomized clinical trial.

To compare the effects of powered and manual toothbrushing following scaling and root planing on bleeding on probing and other clinical indicators of periodontitis. This was a randomized, examiner-blind, parallel-design, 24-week clinical study. Eligible subjects were 18-75 years of age with Stage I or II periodontitis. All subjects received scaling and root planing (SRP) within 28 days of enrollment. Thereafter, subjects were randomized to twice daily at-home use of either a powered toothbrush (PTB) or a manual toothbrush (MTB). Randomization was balanced for gender and periodontitis stage. No other oral hygiene aids were permitted. Subjects were evaluated every 4 weeks for the following measures: bleeding on probing (BOP), surface plaque (MPI), probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level until Week 24. Of 328 randomized subjects, 299 subjects completed the study. For BOP at Week 24, the Least Squares (LS) Mean, standard error (SE) reduction from baseline was 0.24 (0.01) for the PTB group and 0.02 (0.01) for the MTB group, resulting in a statistically significant treatment difference of 0.22 (0.01), p-value < 0.0001. There were also concomitant reductions in MPI and PPD at Week 24, resulting in statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001) LS Mean (SE) treatment differences of 0.86 (0.04) and 0.24 (0.01), for MPI and PPD, respectively. When combined with SRP, daily home oral hygiene maintenance including a powered toothbrush significantly reduced clinical symptoms of periodontitis and surface plaque levels compared to a manual toothbrush in a Stage I/II periodontitis population. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254770).

NOV03 for Signs and Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease Associated With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: The Randomized Phase 3 MOJAVE Study

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOV03 (perfluorohexyloctane) ophthalmic drop for the treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) associated with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Patients ≥18 years of age with a history of DED and signs of MGD were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with NOV03 or hypotonic saline (0.6%) 4 times daily for 8 weeks. The primary sign and symptom endpoints were change from baseline to week 8 in total corneal fluorescein staining (tCFS; National Eye Institute scale) and eye dryness score (0-100 visual analog scale), respectively. A total of 620 patients (NOV03, n = 311; saline, n = 309) were randomized and treated. Least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to week 8 was statistically significantly greater for NOV03 compared with saline for both tCFS (-2.3 vs -1.1; LS mean treatment difference, -1.2 [95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.8]; P < .001) and visual analog scale dryness score (-29.4 vs -19.2; LS mean treatment difference, -10.2 [95% CI -14.4 to -6.1]; P < .001), with statistically significant between-group differences observed as early as week 2. The incidence of ocular adverse events was similar for NOV03 (12.9%) and saline (12.3%). There were no serious adverse events and no adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. In this randomized controlled trial of patients with DED associated with MGD, NOV03 significantly reduced both signs and symptoms of DED compared with hypotonic saline control. NOV03 was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of saline.

Does Menopausal Status Affect Dry Eye Disease Treatment Outcomes with OC-01 (Varenicline Solution) Nasal Spray? A PostHoc Analysis of ONSET-1 and ONSET-2 Clinical Trials.

This study sought to compare the efficacy of OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray for treatment of dry eye disease (DED) in postmenopausal women (PM+) versus women who were not postmenopausal (PM-). This was a posthoc subgroup analysis of data integrated from two prior randomized controlled clinical trials, ONSET-1 and ONSET-2. Women randomized to treatment with OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray 0.03mg or vehicle control (VC) whose self-reported menopausal status (PM+ versus PM-) was known were included. Outcomes included the treatment difference (the OC-01 [varenicline solution] nasal spray change from baseline [CFB] minus VC CFB) in Schirmer test score (STS, mm) with anesthesia and the eye dryness score (EDS) measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no discomfort, 100 = maximal discomfort). Least-squares mean treatment differences were derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models. Overall, 449 female participants in the ONSET-1 and ONSET-2 trials randomized to the OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray 0.03mg or VC groups were included in this analysis. The treatment-menopausal status interaction terms in the STS and EDS ANCOVA and logistic regression models were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), indicating consistency of treatment effect between the PM- and PM+ groups. The treatment difference in STS was similar in the PM- and PM+ groups (6.7 and 5.5mm, respectively). The treatment difference in EDS was similar in the PM- and PM+ groups (- 5.5 and - 4.1, respectively). OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray demonstrated similar efficacy in promoting natural tear production and improving symptoms in both PM- and PM+ groups. As menopausal-related hormonal changes may be associated with more severe DED, these results may support OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray as an effective treatment for DED in women regardless of presenting menopausal status. Posthoc subgroup analysis of data integrated from ONSET-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03636061) and ONSET-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04036292).

Clinical Efficacy of a 2-Week Treatment Course of Zuranolone for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Postpartum Depression: Outcomes From the Clinical Development Program

IntroductionAntidepressants that offer a rapid onset of action without requiring chronic use are greatly needed in both major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression (PPD). Zuranolone is an investigational, oral, neuroactive steroid and GABAA receptor positive allosteric modulator in clinical development as a 2-week treatment course for MDD and PPD.ObjectivesTo present the efficacy and safety of zuranolone vs placebo in Phase 2 and 3 trials.MethodsIn the studies presented (Table 1), improvements in depressive symptoms were assessed by least-squares mean (LSM) using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures on the change from baseline (CFB) at Day 15 in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score (HAMD-17; primary endpoint for all trials) and the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; secondary endpoint) following a 14-day treatment course of once-daily zuranolone.ResultsCompared with placebo, zuranolone treatment led to rapid improvements in depressive symptoms across clinical trials, with significant improvements (LSM treatment difference [SE] in CFB) in HAMD-17 and MADRS scores at Day 15 in 3 of the 4 trials (Table 2). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥5% in zuranolone treatment arms) were headache, somnolence, dizziness, nausea, sedation, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and fatigue (Table 3). No incidences of loss of consciousness or excessive sedation were observed.ConclusionsAcross the completed studies in the zuranolone clinical trial program, patients receiving zuranolone consistently experienced improvement in depressive symptoms following a 2-week treatment course. Treatment with zuranolone was generally well tolerated with a consistent safety and tolerability profile.DisclosureThe MDD-201B, MOUNTAIN, and ROBIN studies were sponsored by Sage Therapeutics, Inc; the WATERFALL study was sponsored by Sage Therapeutics, Inc, and Biogen. Medical writing and editorial support were provided by MediTech Media, Ltd, and funded by Biogen.

Improvement in fatigue and sleep measures with the dual orexin receptor antagonist lemborexant in adults with insomnia disorder

ABSTRACT Objective Fatigue is a common symptom in patients with insomnia. This analysis evaluated whether treatment of nighttime symptoms of insomnia with a dual orexin receptor antagonist, lemborexant, might also reduce fatigue. Methods Analyses were conducted of two phase 3 studies of subjects with insomnia disorder. Subjects received placebo, lemborexant 5 mg, or lemborexant 10 mg in the 12-month (6 months placebo-controlled) Study E2006-G000-303 (Study 303: SUNRISE-2) of adults (N = 949; full analysis set [FAS]), and the 1-month, placebo- and active-controlled Study E2006-G000-304 (Study 304; SUNRISE-1) of older adults (females ≥55 years, males ≥65 years) (N = 1006; FAS). Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Patient-reported sleep onset and maintenance endpoints were analyzed using data from electronic sleep diaries. Results Lemborexant significantly reduced subject-reported fatigue versus placebo over a 6-month treatment period (FSS total score least-squares mean treatment difference of −2.50 for 5 mg and −2.56 for 10 mg of lemborexant; p < 0.05 for both). This reduction was sustained over 12 months of lemborexant in both the overall population and in subjects with clinically meaningful fatigue (FSS total score ≥36) at baseline. Improvements in fatigue over time positively correlated with improvements in sleep onset and maintenance parameters. Improvements in sleep quality were evident as early as 1 week after lemborexant treatment, whereas longer-term treatment (>1 month) may be needed for improvements in insomnia-related fatigue. Conclusions In addition to improving sleep onset and sleep maintenance in subjects with insomnia disorder, lemborexant provides further benefit by reducing daytime fatigue. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02952820 and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02783729 Abbreviations DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition; FSS = Fatigue Severity Scale; ICSD-3 = International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition; LSM = least squares mean; sSE = subjective sleep efficiency; sSOL = subjective sleep onset latency; sTST = subjective total sleep time; sWASO = subjective sleep after wake onset.

A Randomized, Controlled Laboratory Classroom Study of Serdexmethylphenidate and d-Methylphenidate Capsules in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate (SDX/d-MPH) capsules (Azstarys™) compared with placebo in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a randomized, double-blind, dose-optimized laboratory classroom study. Methods: Children ages 6-12 with ADHD were enrolled. During a 3-week, open-label, Dose Optimization Phase, subjects initiated treatment with 39.2 mg/7.8 mg/day of SDX/d-MPH and were titrated weekly to an optimal dose (maximum dose of 52.3/10.4 mg). During the double-blind Treatment Phase, subjects were randomized to receive their optimal dose of SDX/d-MPH or placebo for 7 days. On day 7, efficacy was assessed in the laboratory classroom using the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) Rating Scale and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP). To evaluate safety, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and electrocardiograms were assessed, and suicide risk was assessed. Results: A total of 149 subjects completed the study. In the primary efficacy analysis, the mean postdose change from baseline in SKAMP-Combined scores averaged over the laboratory classroom day was significantly improved with SDX/d-MPH versus placebo (least-squares mean treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: -5.41 [-7.10 to -3.71]; p < 0.001). A significant treatment effect for SDX/d-MPH compared with placebo was observed from 1 to 10 hours postdose. A post hoc analysis more comparable with that conducted in similar studies indicated a 0.5- to 13-hour onset and duration of efficacy. Both average postdose PERMP-Attempted and PERMP-Correct score changes from baseline were significantly improved among those treated with SDX/d-MPH versus placebo (p < 0.001 for both). No serious AEs were reported. During the Dose Optimization Phase, two-thirds of subjects reported AEs; the most common being insomnia and decreased appetite. Conclusions: SDX/d-MPH showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms compared with placebo in children 6-12 years of age, with a rapid onset and extended duration of treatment effect. SDX/d-MPH was safe, with AEs comparable with those observed with other stimulant treatments.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in Adults with Type1 Diabetes: The PRONTO-T1D Extension.

IntroductionThe PRONTO-T1D study, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of HbA1c change from baseline compared to lispro at 26 weeks. We present results of an additional 26-week treatment phase evaluating long-term efficacy and safety of URLi.MethodsIn this phase 3, treat-to-target study, subjects were randomized to double-blind mealtime URLi, lispro, or open-label postmeal URLi with insulin degludec or glargine for 26 weeks. Subjects in the double-blind URLi (n = 451) and lispro (n = 442) groups continued for another 26 weeks to assess long-term efficacy and safety.ResultsHbA1c increased marginally during the long-term maintenance period (week 26–52) in both groups to 7.47% (URLi) and 7.54% (lispro). At week 52, there were no statistically significant treatment differences in change from baseline HbA1c with a least-squares mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of − 0.06% (− 0.16, 0.03). Proportions of patients with HbA1c < 7% at week 52 were similar (URLi, 26.8%; lispro, 24.5%). Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) showed that 1-h (9.23 versus 10.14 mmol/L) and 2-h (8.40 versus 9.53 mmol/L) postmeal daily mean glucose was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower with URLi than lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, documented, and postprandial hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dl [3.0 mmol/L]) were similar between treatments, but URLi demonstrated a 31% lower rate in the period more than 4 h after meals, (p = 0.023). Injection site reactions were reported by 3.3% of patients on URLi and 0.9% on lispro. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatments.ConclusionOverall glycemic control and improved postprandial glucose via SMBG were maintained after 52 weeks with URLi versus lispro, suggesting that the efficacy of URLi is preserved during long-term treatment in patients with T1D. No long-term safety issues were identified with URLi.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214367.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-020-00987-8.

FRI0343 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB, A SELECTIVE JANUS KINASE 1 INHIBITOR, IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: SUBGROUP ANALYSES FROM A RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 2 TRIAL (EQUATOR)

Background:Treatment with the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib was associated with rapid and significant improvements in multiple domains of active psoriatic arthritis versus placebo in the 16-week Phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, randomized EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving filgotinib, versus placebo, achieved the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at Week 16 (80% vs 33%, respectively).1Objectives:The aim of this predefined analysis was to evaluate the consistency of the response to filgotinib across predefined relevant subpopulations participating in the EQUATOR trial.Methods:In EQUATOR, patients with active psoriatic arthritis were treated with filgotinib 200 mg (n=65) or placebo (n=66) once daily for 16 weeks. Key clinical endpoints, including ACR20 and ACR50 (50% improvement) response rates, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) were evaluated according to the following baseline characteristics: sex, body mass index, disease duration, baseline disease severity, concurrent use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor(s). For PASDAS and DAPSA scores, statistical analysis of changes from baseline was performed using analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, randomization stratification, subgroup, and an interaction between treatment and subgroup. Least-squares (LS) mean difference between treatment arms and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For ACR20 and ACR50 response rates, statistical analysis used the point estimate and corresponding 95% CI, based on the Newcombe method.Results:Sixty patients (92%) in the filgotinib group and 64 (97%) in the placebo group completed the study. The total number of patients in each subpopulation ranged from 18 to 104 (Figure 1). Differences in the proportions of patients achieving ACR20 consistently favored filgotinib, compared with placebo, across all subgroups (Figure 1); all differences reached statistical significance. Similarly, differences in the proportions of ACR50 responders and LS mean treatment differences for PASDAS and DAPSA consistently favored filgotinib, reaching statistical significance in most subgroups. No clinically relevant differences in the effect of filgotinib were observed across subgroups. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified.Conclusion:In the 16-week EQUATOR trial, the effects of filgotinib on key efficacy endpoints were generally consistent across a range of subgroups based on patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Inhaled Umeclidinium in Asian Patients with COPD: Results from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

PurposePrevious studies demonstrating efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have included few Asian patients. This study evaluated efficacy and safety of UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo in Asian patients with COPD.Patients and MethodsA Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (aged ≥40 years with COPD, pre-, and post-albuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70 and low risk of exacerbations) were randomized 2:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo via the ELLIPTA inhaler for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1 on Day 169. Secondary endpoints were weighted mean FEV1 over 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1 and CFB in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score on Day 168.ResultsA total of 306 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population (UMEC: 205; placebo: 101). UMEC versus placebo provided a statistically significant improvement in least squares (LS) mean trough FEV1 between baseline and Day 169 (154 mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 113, 194]; p<0.001). A clinically meaningful difference of 125 mL in favor of UMEC (95% CI: 103, 147; p<0.001) was also seen in LS weighted mean FEV1 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1. A LS mean treatment difference in TDI focal score of 0.9 units in favor of UMEC was seen on Day 168 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5; p=0.004). Incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was lower in the placebo (55%) versus UMEC arm (60%); non-fatal serious AEs, drug-related AEs, and AEs leading to withdrawal were similar with UMEC and placebo.ConclusionOnce-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and dyspnea, compared with placebo, in Asian patients with COPD, with no new safety concerns observed.

Effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil levels in adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

BackgroundOmalizumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with asthma. Several studies have shown lung function improvements with omalizumab; however, this has not been examined exclusively in adolescents. ObjectiveTo assess the effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil counts in adolescents with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, data from adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from 8 randomized trials of omalizumab were pooled (studies 008, 009, and 011, and SOLAR, INNOVATE, ALTO, ETOPA, and EXTRA). Changes from baseline to end of study in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and blood eosinophil counts were assessed by fitting an analysis of covariance model and calculating least squares mean (LSM) difference for omalizumab vs placebo. ResultsA total of 340 adolescents were identified (omalizumab, n = 203 [59.7%]; placebo, n = 137 [40.3%]). Omalizumab increased all baseline lung function variables more than placebo by end of study: LSM treatment differences (95% confidence interval) were 3.0% (0.2%-5.7%; P = .035), 120.9 mL (30.6-211.2 mL; P = .009), and 101.5 mL (8.3-194.6 mL; P = .033) for ppFEV1, absolute FEV1, and FVC, respectively. The LSM difference demonstrated a greater reduction in eosinophil counts for omalizumab vs placebo: −85.9 cells/μL (−137.1 to −34.6 cells/μL; P = .001). ConclusionOmalizumab was associated with lung function improvements and circulating eosinophil counts reductions in adolescents with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Findings emphasize the effect of omalizumab in young patients and the need to optimize treatment early in the disease course. https://clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00314574, NCT00046748, NCT00401596

Comparison of fluticasone propionate with budesonide administered via nebulizer: a randomized controlled trial in patients with severe persistent asthma

This study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) inhalation n solution with budesonide (BUD) suspension for inhalation administered via nebulizer, in Chinese adult patients with severe, persistent asthma. This was a multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel-group study, conducted at 26 clinical sites in China. Participants were randomized 1:1 to FP nebules 1 mg twice daily or BUD 2 mg twice daily via nebulizer for 12 weeks. A total of 317 adult patients were randomized. The primary endpoint was mean change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over weeks 1-12 from baseline, and analyzed in the ITT (n=315) and PP populations (n=283). Week 12 PEF increase from baseline was 26.7 L/min (14.1%) and 28.0 L/min (15.3%) in the ITT population, and 29.1 L/min (15.7%) and 30.1 L/min (16.2%) in the PP population, in the FP and BUD groups, respectively; all improvements were of clinical significance. Lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs for the least squares (LS) mean treatment difference (FP minus BUD) were -12.19 L/min (ITT) and -12.95 L/min (PP), both above the pre-specified non-inferiority criteria -12.00 L/min and not clinically meaningful. There was no significant difference in the week 12 mean FEV1 increase between the FP and BUD groups (0.237 L/16.79% vs. 0.236 L/17.73%). Lower limits of the 95% CIs for LS mean treatment difference in morning PEF change from baseline over weeks 1-4 in a post hoc analysis were -10.41 and -11.96 L/min in the ITT and PP populations respectively; both above -12.00 L/min. A review of safety data indicated that rates of AEs, SAEs, and drug-related AEs were similar between two groups. The 12-week treatment of FP inhalation solution administered via nebulizer is safe and effectively for treating severe, persistent asthma in Chinese patients over 12 week.

Omalizumab Improves Quality of Life and Asthma Control in Chinese Patients With Moderate to Severe Asthma: A Randomized Phase III Study.

PurposeOmalizumab is the preferred add-on therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma and has demonstrated efficacy and safety in various ethnicities. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase III study assessed lung function, quality of life, asthma control, and safety of omalizumab after 24-week therapy in Chinese patients (18-75 years of age).ResultsA total of 616 patients were randomized (1:1) to omalizumab or placebo. The primary endpoint, least squares mean treatment difference (LSM-TD) in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (omalizumab vs placebo), at Weeks >20-24 was 8.85 L/min (Full analysis set; P=0.062). Per-protocol analysis set showed significant improvements with LSM-TD of 11.53 L/min in mean mPEF at Weeks >20-24 (P=0.022). The FEV1 % predicted was significantly improved with omalizumab vs placebo from 8 to 24 weeks (after 24-week treatment: LSM-TD=4.12%; P=0.001). At Week 24, a higher proportion of omalizumab-treated patients achieved clinically relevant improvements in standardized AQLQ (58.2% vs 39.3%; LSM=0.51 vs 0.10; P<0.001) and ACQ (49.5% vs 35.5%; LSM=-0.51 vs -0.34; P=0.002) scores vs placebo. Total and nighttime symptom scores reduced significantly with omalizumab vs placebo (LSM-TD=-0.21, P=0.048 and -0.12, P=0.011, respectively). Although the study was not powered to study differences in exacerbation rates (P=0.097), exacerbations in winter months were less frequent in the omalizumab vs placebo group (2 vs 21). Adverse event and severe adverse event rates were comparable between omalizumab and placebo.ConclusionsOmalizumab improves lung function, quality of life, and asthma control in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma and has a good safety profile.

Efficacy and safety of colesevelam in combination with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Colesevelam improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes when added to existing metformin-, sulfonylurea-, or insulin-based regimens. We evaluated colesevelam's effects in subjects on stable pioglitazone-based therapy. This 24-week multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who had suboptimal glycemic control [HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and ≤ 80 mmol/mol (9.5%)] on pioglitazone (30 or 45 mg) with or without 1-2 other oral antidiabetes medications. Subjects were randomized to colesevelam 3.8 g/day (n = 280) or placebo (n = 282) added to existing pioglitazone-based therapy. Primary efficacy variable was mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary variables included safety and tolerability, fasting plasma glucose changes, glycemic responses, and lipid profile. Tertiary variables included lipid particle profile changes by nuclear magnetic resonance. Colesevelam decreased HbA1c [least-squares mean treatment difference, - 3.5 mmol/mol (- 0.32%); p < 0.001] and fasting plasma glucose (- 14.7 mg/dl; p<0.001) vs. placebo at Week 24. More subjects receiving colesevelam vs. placebo achieved HbA1c reduction ≥ 7.7 mmol/mol (0.7%) (40% vs. 25%; p<0.001) or HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) (21% vs. 13%; p = 0.012). Colesevelam also decreased total cholesterol (mean treatment difference, - 6.5%), LDL-cholesterol (- 16.4%), non-HDL-cholesterol (- 9.8%), apolipoprotein B (- 8.8%), and total LDL particle concentration, and increased apolipoprotein A1 (+3.4%) and triglycerides (median treatment difference, + 11.3%) vs. placebo (all p < 0.001). There were no serious drug-related adverse events, and the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate. In subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with pioglitazone-based therapy, add-on colesevelam therapy improved glycemic control and lipid parameters and was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00789750.

Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 reduces patient-reported dyspnoea in COPD: the BLAZE study

We evaluated the effect of QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining indacaterol and glycopyrronium, on direct patient-reported dyspnoea in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this multicentre, blinded, double-dummy, three-period crossover study, 247 patients were randomised to once-daily QVA149 110/50 μg, placebo or tiotropium 18 μg. Superiority of QVA149 versus placebo (primary objective) and tiotropium (secondary objective) was assessed for improvement in dyspnoea via the self-administered computerised (SAC) version of the Baseline and Transition Dyspnoea Index after 6 weeks. Secondary end-points included lung function, rescue medication use and safety. After 6 weeks, the SAC Transition Dyspnoea Index total score was significantly higher with QVA149 versus placebo (least squares mean (LSM) treatment difference 1.37, p<0.001) and tiotropium (LSM treatment difference 0.49, p=0.021). QVA149 provided significant improvements in lung function, with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0-4 h post-dose versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 and week 6 (all p<0.001). Rescue medication use was significantly lower with QVA149 versus placebo (p<0.001) and tiotropium (p=0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Once-daily QVA149 provided superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnoea and lung function versus placebo and tiotropium. These benefits were associated with improvements in other symptoms and reduced use of rescue medication.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate as Augmentation Therapy in Adults With Residual Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder After Treatment With Escitalopram

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation for major depressive disorder (MDD) in escitalopram nonremitters. In this proof-of-concept study (conducted from July 2009-August 2010) with a prespecified critical α = .10, adults with nonpsychotic MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria) and residual depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score ≥ 4) after 8 weeks of open-label escitalopram were randomized to 6 weeks of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (20-50 mg/d) or placebo augmentation. The primary endpoint, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change in escitalopram nonremitters (MADRS total score > 10) from week 8 (augmentation baseline) to week 14/end of study, was assessed using analysis of covariance, with last observation carried forward. For nonremitters (placebo, n = 64; lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, n = 65), the least squares (LS) mean (90% CI) treatment difference for MADRS total score reduction at week 14/end of study (-2.3 [-4.5 to -0.1]; P = .0902) met the prespecified criterion for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate superiority (adjusted effect size, -0.3); the number needed to treat for MADRS remission (MADRS total score ≤ 10) was 6.7. The LS mean treatment difference in remitters was not statistically significant (1.2 [-1.6 to 4.0]; P = .4726). Among randomized participants, 49.4% (42/85) receiving placebo and 60.2% (53/88) receiving lisdexamfetamine dimesylate had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event, the most frequent with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate being dry mouth and headache (both 11.4%). Mean (SD) vital sign and electrocardiogram changes (placebo vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate) were 0.5 (8.98) versus 2.3 (9.04) mm Hg (systolic blood pressure), -1.0 (7.19) versus 0.9 (6.61) mm Hg (diastolic blood pressure), -0.4 (7.39) versus 4.8 (8.64) beats per minute (heart rate), and -1.6 (11.23) versus -4.9 (11.84) milliseconds (Fridericia-adjusted QTc). Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation reduced depressive symptoms in participants with inadequate escitalopram response. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00905424.

Intensification of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective, non- interventional cohort study of patients treated with insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin in daily clinical practice

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of intensification of insulin treatment with insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes on concomitant therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) in daily clinical practice.MethodsA retrospective multicentre parallel two-arm study included 301 patients with type 2 diabetes already on treatment with biphasic human insulin twice daily (bd) in combination with OAD. Data were collected retrospectively from 142 patients who had been switched from biphasic human insulin to insulin glargine in a period of 6–12 months prior to their inclusion (active group) and compared to data collected retrospectively from 159 patients who continued treatment with biphasic human insulin bd for the same time period (control group). Our primary objective was to examine the efficacy of the two treatments, assessed as change in HbA1c. Secondary objectives were to examine for changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG), body weight, treatment with OAD or fast-acting insulin and safety, by assessing the frequency and severity of hypoglycaemic episodes.ResultsAt the end of the study there was a significant reduction in HbA1c in both arms. The least squares (LS) mean [(95% confidence intervals (CI)] reduction in HbA1c was -1.13 (-0.96 to -1.30)% in the active and -0.59 (-0.41to -0.77)% in the control group [LS mean treatment difference 0.53 (0.31-0.76)%, p < 0.001]. Similarly, fasting blood glucose declined significantly in both arms. The LS mean decline in FBG was -47.02 (-37.89 to -56.14) mg/dl in the active and -19.73 (-11.57 to -27.89) mg/dl in the control group [LS mean treatment difference 27.85 (15.74-39.95) mg/dl, p < 0.001]. No significant difference in hypoglycaemic episodes and in body weight was found. In the active group, more patients received rapid-acting pre-meal insulin and used insulin secretagogues drugs.ConclusionsGlargine alone or in combination with fast acting insulin is more effective in reducing glycaemia than biphasic human insulin alone or in combination with fast acting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes without increase in hypoglycaemic episodes or body weight.

An integrated analysis of the efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray versus placebo on the nasal symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids are widely prescribed for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). The aim of this analysis was to determine whether the beneficial effects of once-daily (q.d.) fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) effectively improved individual nasal symptoms of PAR. An integrated analysis was performed on data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FFNS at 110 micrograms, q.d. in subjects with PAR. The analysis included 460 subjects who received FFNS and 459 who received placebo for 4 weeks. All subjects evaluated the severity of individual nasal symptoms of nasal congestion, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing on a four-point categorical scale. The main efficacy measures included change from baseline in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective daily scores for each individual symptom, and predose instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS). Over 4 weeks of treatment, FFNS significantly improved rTNSS, iTNSS, and the reflective scores for each individual symptom compared with placebo. The least squares (LS) mean treatment difference over weeks 1-4 between FFNS and placebo for rTNSS was -0.93, ranging from -0.20 to -0.28 for the individual nasal symptoms (p < 0.001 for all versus placebo). For the iTNSS, the LS mean treatment difference between FFNS and placebo over weeks 1-4 was -0.95 (95% CI,-1.24, -0.66; p < 0.001). FFNS at 110 micrograms q.d. effectively relieved all nasal symptoms of PAR including nasal congestion over a 24-hour period.

Reduction in cardiovascular risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus usual care in younger (

Objective:To compare the reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk after 52 weeks’ intervention with a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) strategy (based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin [SPAA]) versus continuing usual care (UC) (based on investigators' best clinical judgment) among younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients.Research design and methods:Sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥3 cardiovascular risk factors.Main outcome measure:Treatment-related reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in younger and older patients.Results:Nine hundred patients (63.5%) were <65 years (mean age 54.2 years, 57.4% men) and 517 patients (36.5%) were ≥65 years (mean age 70.5 years, 42.7% men). Younger patients had lower mean baseline CHD risk versus older patients (17.1% vs. 22.6%). A greater reduction in calculated CHD risk at Week 52 was observed in the PMI versus the UC arm in both younger (−33.2% vs. −2.9%, p < 0.001) and older (−32.7% vs. −5.7%, p < 0.001) patients. Least-squares mean treatment differences (PMI vs. UC) in percentage change from baseline in calculated CHD risk were similar in younger and older patients (−26.3% vs. −25.7%, age interaction p = 0.887). CHD risk reduction was slightly greater among younger men than younger women (−29.3 vs. −23.9, gender interaction p = 0.062). A low proportion of patients discontinued the PMI strategy due to adverse events in both age groups (5.8% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Study limitations included ad-hoc (not pre-specified) sub-group analysis and short duration of follow-up.Conclusions:The PMI strategy based on the inclusion of SPAA in the treatment regimen is more effective than UC in reducing calculated CHD risk. This strategy may be considered as the treatment of choice in younger and older hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundThis study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform®), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.MethodsPatients aged ≥ 12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 μg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 μg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV1 from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations.ResultsStatistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV1 compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV1 versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period.ConclusionsFluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma.EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991

Onset of Bronchodilation with Fluticasone/Formoterol Combination Versus Fluticasone/Salmeterol in an Open-Label, Randomized Study

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (fluticasone), and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist, formoterol fumarate (formoterol), have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol). In a randomized, open-label study, fluticasone/formoterol showed similar efficacy to fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared the onset of bronchodilation with the two treatments. Adults with mild-to-moderate-severe persistent asthma were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 or 250/10 μg twice daily [b.i.d.]) or fluticasone/salmeterol (100/50 or 250/50 μg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. The onset of bronchodilation (the first post-dose time point at which the forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] was ≥12% greater than the pre-dose value), responder rates (the proportion of patients achieving bronchodilation), and changes in FEV(1) were assessed at days 0 (baseline) and 84. Fluticasone/formoterol (n = 101) provided more rapid onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol (n = 101) over the first 120 min post-dose on days 0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.05-2.05]) and 84 (HR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.14-2.73]). The odds of a patient achieving bronchodilation within 5 min of dosing were almost four-times higher with fluticasone/formoterol than with fluticasone/salmeterol on day 0 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.97 [95% CI 1.96-8.03]) and almost 10-times higher on day 84 (OR = 9.58 [95% CI 2.14-42.90]); the odds of achieving bronchodilation within 120 min post-dose were approximately twofold higher with fluticasone/formoterol on both days. The overall percentage increase in least-squares (LS) mean FEV1 during the 120-min post-dose period was significantly greater with fluticasone/formoterol than fluticasone/salmeterol on days 0 (LS mean treatment difference: 4.70% [95% CI 1.57-7.83]; P = 0.003) and 84 (2.79% [95% CI 0.65-4.93]; P = 0.011). These analyses showed that fluticasone/formoterol provided a faster onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol, which was maintained over 12 weeks of treatment. This benefit may facilitate treatment adherence among patients with asthma.