Number Of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Research Articles

A phase III, open-label clinical trial evaluating pegunigalsidase alfa administered every 4 weeks in adults with Fabry disease previously treated with other enzyme replacement therapies.

Pegunigalsidase alfa, a PEGylated α-galactosidase A enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for Fabry disease, has a longer plasma half-life than other ERTs administered intravenously every 2 weeks (E2W). BRIGHT (NCT03180840) was a phase III, open-label study in adults with Fabry disease, previously treated with agalsidase alfa or beta E2W for ≥3 years, who switched to 2 mg/kg pegunigalsidase alfa every 4 weeks (E4W) for 52 weeks. Primary objective assessed safety, including number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Thirty patients were enrolled (24 males); 23 previously received agalsidase beta. Pegunigalsidase alfa plasma concentrations remained above the lower limit of quantification throughout the 4-week dosing interval. Thirty-three of 182 TEAEs (in 9 patients) were considered treatment-related; all were mild/moderate. No patients developed de novo anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). In the efficacy analysis (n = 29), median (inter-quartile range) eGFR change from baseline over 52 weeks was -1.9 (-5.9; 1.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 28; males [n = 22]: -2.4 [-5.2; 3.2]; females [n = 6]: -0.7 [-9.2; 2.0]). Overall, median eGFR slope was -1.9 (-8.3; 1.9) mL/min/1.73 m2/year (ADA-negative [n = 20]: -1.2 [-6.4; 2.6]; ADA-positive [n = 9]: -8.4 [-11.6; -1.0]). Lyso-Gb3 concentrations were low and stable in females, with a slight increase in males (9/24 ADA-positive). The BRIGHT study results suggest that 2 mg/kg pegunigalsidase alfa E4W is tolerated well in stable adult patients with Fabry disease. Due to the low number of patients in this study, more research is needed to demonstrate the effects of pegunigalsidase alfa given E4W. Further evidence, outside of this clinical trial, should be factored in for physicians to prolong the biweekly ERT intervals to E4W. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Treatment with 2 mg/kg pegunigalsidase alfa every 4 weeks could offer a new treatment option for patients with Fabry disease.

Home-based EEG Neurofeedback for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

This parallel, 2-arm, blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial examined whether, when added to usual care, active-electroencephalography neurofeedback (EEG NFB) was safe and more effective than sham control-EEG NFB for chronic pain. In total, 116 participants with chronic pain were randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care plus ≥32 sessions of active-EEG NFB upregulating relative alpha power over C4 or usual care plus ≥32 sessions of sham control-EEG NFB. Per-protocol analyses revealed no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome, Brief Pain Inventory average pain (mean difference [95% confidence interval]: −.04 [−.39 to .31], P = .90), or any secondary outcomes. However, 44% of participants in the active-EEG NFB group and 45% in the control-EEG NFB group reported at least a moderate (≥30%), clinically important improvement in Brief Pain Inventory average pain. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in both groups (P = .83), and none were serious. Post hoc analyses revealed similar upregulated relative alpha power in both groups during training, with concordant positive rewards delivered to the active-EEG group 100% of the time and the control-EEG group ∼25% of the time, suggesting a partially active sham intervention. When added to usual care, the active-EEG NFB intervention used in this study was not superior to the sham control-EEG NFB intervention. However, a large proportion of participants in both groups reported a clinically important reduction in pain intensity. A partially active sham intervention may have obscured between-group differences. The intervention was free of important side effects, with no safety concerns identified. PerspectiveThis study is the first attempt at an appropriately blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial of alpha EEG NFB for the treatment of chronic pain. The findings may interest people living with chronic pain, clinicians involved in chronic pain management, and may inform the design of future EEG NFB trials. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000667819.

Efficacy and Safety of Two Chondroprotective Supplements in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Pilot Study.

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA), glucosamine (Glc), and chondroitin sulfate (CS) are key ingredients commonly incorporated into dietary chondroprotective supplements for the management of osteoarthritis (OA). Despite their widespread use, there is a paucity of published data regarding their efficacy and safety, necessitating rigorous investigation in clinical settings. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a randomized, single-blindpilot study to evaluate the effects of two commercially available multi-ingredient supplements on patients with mild-to-moderate knee OA. Methods: A total of 51 patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate knee OA were enrolled in a four-week randomized study and allocated equally (1:1:1 ratio) into three groups: a control group (n = 17) that received no treatment, an HA group (n = 17) given Syalox® 300 Plus (1 tablet/day) containing HA (300 mg) and Boswellia serrata extract (100 mg), and a Glc + CS group (n = 17) given Cartijoint® Forte (1 tablet/day) containing Glc (415 mg), CS (400 mg), and curcuminoids from rhizomes of Curcuma longa L (50 mg).Physicians conducting evaluations were blinded to group assignments, whereas patients were not. All participants underwent assessments of pain relief, functional capacity improvement, and serum adropin levels, an emerging biomarker of knee OA, at baseline and after the four-week intervention period. Results: Both the HA and the Glc + CS groups exhibited improvements at the end of the study relative to baseline, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) observed in pain at rest, pain during movement, range of motion, and the overall Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including its pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales. Notably, the HA group outperformed the Glc + CS group in the alleviation of pain at rest, pain during movement, and on the WOMAC pain subscale, with all differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additionally, both groups showed a significant elevation in serum adropin levels from baseline (p < 0.05), with the HA group experiencing a more substantial increase when compared to the Glc + CS group (p < 0.05). Both supplements showed a limited number of treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusion:Oral supplementation with either HA or Glc + CS demonstrated potential benefits for managing symptoms of mild-to-moderate knee OA. Notably, HA supplementation was associated with greater improvements in pain relief and higher elevations in serum adropin levels compared to Glc + CS supplementation. However, larger-scale and longer-term studies are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of these dietary supplements within the clinical management arsenal for knee OA.

Cognitive and psychiatric adverse events during adjunctive cenobamate treatment in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical studies

ObjectiveCognitive and psychiatric adverse events in patients with epilepsy are important determinants of therapeutic outcomes and patient quality of life. We assessed the relationship between adjunctive cenobamate treatment and selected cognitive and psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in adults with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of pooled populations of patients with focal epilepsy from two phase 2, randomized, double-blind clinical trials; two open-label extensions (OLEs) of those trials; and a long-term, open-label, phase 3 safety study. Occurrence of cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs in patients treated with adjunctive cenobamate or placebo during double-blind treatment were evaluated. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of the cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs, defined as the number of TEAEs per patient-year of treatment, during up to 7 years of long-term adjunctive cenobamate treatment, were determined in the pooled OLE and phase 3 patient populations. ResultsThe pooled randomized trials resulted in a population of 442 patients treated with cenobamate (100 mg/day: n = 108; 200 mg/day: n = 223; 400 mg/day: n = 111) and 216 placebo-treated patients. The combined open-label studies resulted in pooled populations of cenobamate-treated patients ranging from n = 1690 during Year 1 to n = 103 during Year 7. Among cenobamate-treated (all doses) and placebo-treated patients during double-blind treatment, cognitive TEAEs were reported by ≤ 1.9 % (range, 0 %-1.9 %) and ≤ 0.5 % (range, 0 %-0.5 %), respectively, and psychiatric TEAEs by ≤ 3.6 % (range, 0 %-3.6 %) and ≤ 3.2 % (range, 0 %-3.2 %), respectively. During up to 7 years of open-label adjunctive cenobamate treatment, exposure-adjusted incidence rates of cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs were < 0.018 and < 0.038 events per patient-year, respectively. Discontinuation of adjunctive cenobamate due to cognitive or psychiatric TEAEs assessed in this study during double-blind or open-label treatment occurred in ≤ 0.3 % and ≤ 1.7 % of patients, respectively. ConclusionsCognitive and psychiatric TEAEs were reported by similar numbers of cenobamate- and placebo-treated patients during double-blind adjunctive cenobamate treatment (< 4 % of patients), and exposure-adjusted incidence rates of these TEAEs remained low during open-label cenobamate treatment for up to 7 years. Treatment discontinuations due to these TEAEs were rare. The results of this post-hoc analysis indicate that adjunctive cenobamate treatment exhibits a low incidence of cognitive or psychiatric TEAEs in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Turpentine Ointment for the Treatment of Folliculitis: An Open, Prospective, Randomized, Placebo- and Comparator-Controlled Multicenter Trial

Introduction: Folliculitis is a painful infection and inflammation of the hair follicles, mostly caused by bacterial, fungal, or, more rarely, viral infections. Turpentine derivatives have been used traditionally to treat various skin infections and could thus also be effective in treating folliculitis. We carried out an open, prospective, randomized, placebo- and comparator-controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an ointment containing pine turpentine oil, larch turpentine, and eucalyptus oil in the treatment of acute folliculitis. Methods: Seventy outpatients with acute folliculitis were treated with the turpentine ointment, a comparator (povidone iodine solution), or a placebo (Vaseline) for 7 days. Photographs of the affected skin areas were taken by the physicians at four visits and by the patients on a daily basis. Photographs were evaluated by blinded observers. Primary efficacy endpoint was the change in total hair follicle lesion counts. Secondary endpoints included the evolution of the lesion counts in the course of the study, responder rate (improvement of follicle lesions by at least one count), and the patient’s global assessment. Safety endpoints were the tolerability of the treatments and adverse event recording. Results: A decrease of follicle lesions counts was detected for both active treatments but not for placebo, but the differences among groups were not statistically significant. As for the secondary endpoints, the ointment showed statistically significant superiority over placebo for the evolution of the lesions during the course of the study (p = 0.017), the responder rate (p = 0.032), and the subjective efficacy assessment by patients (p = 0.029). All treatments were equally well tolerated, with a similar number of treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusion: The turpentine ointment is an effective and safe option for the treatment of folliculitis.

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and optimal biomarker enrichment strategy for nangibotide, a TREM-1 inhibitor, in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH): a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial

Activation of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) pathway is associated with septic shock outcomes. Data suggest that modulation of this pathway in patients with activated TREM-1 might improve survival. Soluble TREM-1 (sTREM-1), a potential mechanism-based biomarker, might facilitate enrichment of patient selection in clinical trials of nangibotide, a TREM-1 modulator. In this phase 2b trial, we aimed to confirm the hypothesis that TREM1 inhibition might improve outcomes in patients with septic shock. This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial assessed the efficacy and safety of two different doses of nangibotide compared with placebo, and aimed to identify the optimum treatment population, in patients across 42 hospitals with medical, surgical, or mixed intensive care units (ICUs) in seven countries. Non-COVID-19 patients (18-85 years) meeting the standard definition of septic shock, with documented or suspected infection (lung, abdominal, or urinary [in patients ≥65 years]), were eligible within 24 h of vasopressor initiation for the treatment of septic shock. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to intravenous nangibotide 0·3 mg/kg per h (low-dose group), nangibotide 1·0 mg/kg per h (high-dose group), or matched placebo, using a computer-generated block randomisation scheme (block size 3). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were grouped according to sTREM-1 concentrations at baseline (established from sepsis observational studies and from phase 2a change to data) into high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL). The primary outcome was the mean difference in total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from baseline to day 5 in the low-dose and high-dose groups compared with placebo, measured in the predefined high sTREM-1 (≥ 400 pg/mL) population and in the overall modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included all-cause 28-day mortality, safety, pharmacokinetics, and evaluation of the relationship between TREM-1 activation and treatment response. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004827-36, and Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04055909. Between Nov 14, 2019, and April 11, 2022, of 402 patients screened, 355 were included in the main analysis (116 in the placebo group, 118 in the low-dose group, and 121 in the high-dose group). In the preliminary high sTREM-1 population (total 253 [71%] of 355; placebo 75 [65%] of 116; low-dose 90 [76%] of 118; high-dose 88 [73%] of 121), the mean difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 was 0·21 (95% CI -1·45 to 1·87, p=0·80) in the low-dose group and 1·39 (-0·28 to 3·06, p=0·104) in the high-dose group versus placebo. In the overall population, the difference in SOFA score from baseline to day 5 between the placebo group and low-dose group was 0·20 (-1·09 to 1·50; p=0·76),and between the placebo group and the high-dose group was 1·06 (-0·23 to 2·35, p=0·108). In the predefined high sTREM-1 cutoff population, 23 (31%) patients in the placebo group, 35 (39%) in the low-dose group, and 25 (28%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. In the overall population, 29 (25%) patients in the placebo, 38 (32%) in the low-dose, and 30 (25%) in the high-dose group had died by day 28. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (111 [96%] patients in the placebo group, 113 [96%] in the low-dose group, and 115 [95%] in the high-dose group) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (28 [24%], 26 [22%], and 31 [26%]) was similar between all three groups. High-dose nangibotide led to a clinically relevant improvement in SOFA score (of two points or more) from baseline to day 5 over placebo in those with higher cutoff concentrations (≥532 pg/mL) of sTREM-1 at baseline. Low dose nangibotide displayed a similar pattern with lower magnitude of effect across all cutoff values. This trial did not achieve the primary outcome of improvement in SOFA score at the predefined sTREM-1 value. Future studies are needed to confirm the benefit of nangibotide at higher concentrations of TREM-1 activation. Inotrem.

The efficacy and safety of lurasidone in bipolar I depression with and without rapid cycling: A pooled post-hoc analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy in patients with bipolar I depression with or without rapid cycling has not been previously investigated. MethodsWe performed subgroup analysis (rapid cycling/non-rapid cycling) of pooled data from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lurasidone monotherapy (20–60 mg/day or 80–120 mg/day). Analyses included mean change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Safety assessments included the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory assessments. ResultsOf 1024 patients randomized, 85 were rapid cycling. Mean change in MADRS total score in patients with non-rapid cycling and rapid cycling, respectively, was −14.8 (effect size = 0.47) and − 12.8 (effect size = 0.04) in the lurasidone 20–60 mg/day group, −14.3 (effect size = 0.41) and − 13.0 (effect size = 0.02) in the lurasidone 80–120 mg/day group and −10.6 and −13.3 in the placebo group. The most common TEAE in each subgroup was akathisia in both lurasidone groups. Treatment-emergent mania was reported only in a small number of rapid cycling and non-rapid cycling patients. LimitationsThis was a post-hoc analysis of a short-term study that excluded patients with ≥8 cycles in the past year. ConclusionsIn patients with non-rapid cycling bipolar depression, lurasidone monotherapy significantly improved depressive symptoms relative to placebo at both the 20–60 mg/day and 80–120 mg/day doses. In patients with rapid cycling, both doses of lurasidone displayed depressive symptom score reduction from baseline, but significant improvement was not observed likely due to high levels of improvement on placebo and small sample size.

Oseltamivir phosphate for suspension is bioequivalent to TAMIFLU in healthy volunteers: a randomized, open-label clinical study

PurposeThe study was aimed at evaluating the bioequivalence and safety of oseltamivir phosphate for suspension, provided by Shenzhen Beimei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and manufactured by Hetero Labs Limited, and the reference product TAMIFLU® in healthy Chinese subjects.MethodsA single-dose, randomized, two-phase, self-crossed model was adopted. Among 80 healthy subjects, 40 subjects in the fasting group and 40 subjects in the fed group. Subjects in the fasting group were randomized into two sequences according to the proportion of 1:1, each given 75 mg/12.5 mL of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Suspension or TAMIFLU®, and cross-administered after 7 days. Postprandial group is the same as fasting group.ResultsThe Tmax of TAMIFLU® and Oseltamivir Phosphate for Suspension in the fasting group were 1.50 h and 1.25 h, which in the fed group were both 1.25 h. Geometrically adjusted mean ratios of the PK parameters of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Suspension along with TAMIFLU® under fasting and postprandial conditions were in the range of 80.00–125.00% at the 90% confidence interval (CI). The 90% CI of Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ for fasting group and postprandial group were (92.39,106.50), (94.26,100.67), (94.32,100.89) and (93.61,105.83),(95.64,100.19),(96.06,102.66). Among the subjects on medication, a total of 18 subjects reported 27 adverse events, all of which were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), six of these TEAEs were rated as grade 2 in severity and the rest were as grade 1. The number of TEAEs in the test product and the reference product were 14,13 respectively.ConclusionTwo Oseltamivir phosphate for suspensions are safe and bioequivalent.

Mim8 Clinical Development Program: An Overview of the Frontier Studies

Background Mim8 is a bispecific antibody, mimicking activated factor VIII (FVIIIa), currently in clinical development as a treatment for patients with hemophilia A (PwHA), independent of inhibitor status. Preclinical data demonstrate that Mim8 is highly potent with an efficacious hemostatic effect. The FRONTIER program aims to expedite Mim8 development, recruiting participants from >30 countries including women, previously untreated patients (PUPs), and patients with mild/moderate disease severity. FRONTIER 1 (NCT04204408; EudraCT:2019-000465-20), a phase 1/2 study of Mim8 in healthy participants and PwHA, provided proof of concept that Mim8 enables clinically relevant levels of thrombin generation with no safety concerns, and no occurrences of anti-Mim8 antibodies. The study also used biomarker bridging (in vitro and ex vivo) to benchmark against emicizumab. The outcomes from FRONTIER 1 support the further development of Mim8 in the ongoing phase 3 studies (FRONTIER 2 and 3). Methods & Study Design To allow for rapid clinical development, the observational run-in phases of both phase 3 studies were initiated prior to FRONTIER 1 completion (Figure 1A) and are running in parallel. FRONTIER 2 (NCT05053139; EudraCT:2020-001048-24) is an ongoing, open-label, randomized control study investigating the efficacy and safety of Mim8 dosed once-weekly (QW) and once-monthly (QM) in adult and adolescent PwHA (≥12 years of age). The study aims to recruit ~250 PwHA. The primary endpoint is the annualized bleeding rate. Prior to their first Mim8 dose, patients currently on FVIII or bypassing agent prophylaxis will remain on this treatment for ≥26-week observational run-in period (Figure 1B). Patients currently treated on demand with ≥5 bleeds in the 26 weeks prior to screening can join the main phase of the trial without a run-in period. Participants receiving emicizumab must discontinue use and switch to factor prophylaxis when entering the run-in period. Exclusion criteria include planned major surgery, ongoing/planned immune tolerance induction (ITI), and previous or current thromboembolic diseases/events. FRONTIER 3 (NCT05306418; EudraCT:2020-003467-26) is an ongoing, open-label, uncontrolled study investigating the safety of Mim8 in pediatric PwHA (aged 1-11 years). It is targeting recruitment of 70 children with HA with or without inhibitors, who will receive subcutaneous doses of Mim8 QW for 26 weeks. Thereafter, participants can choose between QW and QM prophylaxis regimen for the next 26 weeks (Figure 1B). The primary endpoint is the number of treatment-emergent adverse events during the 52-week treatment period. Key inclusion criteria for FRONTIER 3 include: previously treated patients prescribed FVIII, or by-passing agents, and PUPs with severe HA. Key exclusion criteria are the same as FRONTIER 2. ITI would need to be discontinued prior to joining the trial. To collect further data on the safety and efficacy of Mim8, FRONTIER 1-3 study participants will be invited to join the long-term, open-label extension FRONTIER 4 study. Additionally, plasma samples will be collected from participants with the aim of future exploratory analysis of further biomarkers. Conclusions The FRONTIER studies are a comprehensive clinical development program designed to evaluate Mim8 in PwHA, with or without inhibitors. The FRONTIER 2 and FRONTIER 3 studies initiated recruitment prior to the completion of FRONTIER 1 to accelerate the development of a novel alternative to current HA treatments. Moreover, Mim8 is being investigated in a broad patient population across many different countries and the inclusion criteria were designed to allow for the incorporation of female patients, PUPs, all disease severities, and all ages. This aims to ensure that the study population is as comparable to and representative as possible of the real-world population of PwHA. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Effect of Dimethyl Fumarate vs Interferon β-1a in Patients With Pediatric-Onset Multiple Sclerosis

With few approved multiple sclerosis therapies in the pediatric population, there is a need for further approved treatment options. Limited data exist for dimethyl fumarate (DMF) treatment in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS). To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DMF vs intramuscular interferon β-1a (IFNβ-1a) in POMS. The CONNECT study was an active-controlled, open-label, rater-blinded 96-week randomized clinical trial in patients with POMS aged 10 to less than 18 years treated between August 2014 and November 2020. Data were analyzed from January through October 2021. Patients were randomized to DMF or IFNβ-1a. The primary end point was the proportion of patients free of new or newly enlarging (N or NE) T2 hyperintense lesions at week 96 among trial completers. Secondary end points included number of N or NE T2 lesions, proportion of patients free of relapse, annualized relapse rate (ARR), and safety. The estimated proportion of participants who were relapse free up to week 96 was calculated based on the Kaplan-Meier method. Adjusted ARR was obtained from a negative binomial regression adjusted for baseline relapse rate, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and age group. Among 150 patients with POMS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (median [range] age, 15 [10-17] years; 101 [67.3%] female patients), 78 individuals received DMF and 72 individuals received IFNβ-1a. At week 96, the proportion of patients with no N or NE T2 hyperintense lesions among 103 trial completers was 16.1% (95% CI, 8.0%-27.7%) for DMF vs 4.9% (95% CI, 0.6%-16.5%) for IFNβ-1a, and in a sensitivity analysis among the ITT population, the proportions were 10 patients receiving DMF (12.8%) vs 2 patients receiving IFNβ-1a (2.8%). The estimated proportion of patients who remained relapse free at week 96 was 66.2% for DMF vs 52.3% for IFNβ-1a. Adjusted ARR (95% CI) at week 96 was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.15-0.39) for DMF vs 0.53 (95% CI, 0.33-0.84) for IFNβ-1a; the rate ratio for DMF vs IFNβ-1a was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26-0.80; P = .006). The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 74 patients [94.9%] vs 69 patients [95.8%]), serious TEAEs (18 patients [23.1%] vs 21 patients [29.2%]), and treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs (5 patients [6.4%] vs 8 patients [11.1%]) was similar for DMF vs IFNβ-1a. This study found that more pediatric patients with POMS treated with DMF were free of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions and that the adjusted ARR was lower among these patients compared with those treated with interferon β-1a. DMF was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02283853.

Tolerability of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 by treatment exposure in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): A VISION study subgroup analysis.

5047 Background: In the phase 3 VISION study, lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617; 177Lu-PSMA-617) + protocol-permitted standard of care (SoC) improved clinical benefit and was generally well tolerated despite a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than SoC alone. Here we assess AE incidence by exposure to 177Lu-PSMA-617. Methods: VISION was an international, open-label study of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in adults with PSMA-positive mCRPC previously treated with ≥ 1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and 1–2 taxane regimens. Patients received 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq every 6 weeks, ≤ 6 cycles) + SoC or SoC alone. rPFS and OS were primary endpoints; safety was a secondary endpoint. AE analysis by exposure to 177Lu-PSMA-617 was carried out in pre-specified subgroups. 177Lu-PSMA-617 cycle duration was generally ̃6 weeks and cycle 6 duration was until the earliest date of subsequent treatment, and date of last administration of randomized treatment (including SoC) + 30 days. The cycle of onset in which an AE first occurred in a patient at maximum grade was assessed. Results: The median duration of cycle of onset for cycles 1 to 5 was 6 weeks; for cycle 6, it was 26.6 weeks (Table). Of the 529 patients in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group, 240 (45.4%) received ≤ 4 cycles and 289 (54.6%) received 5–6 cycles of treatment. In patients who received ≤ 4 or 5–6 cycles, 234 (97.5%) and 285 (98.6%) treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs); 100 (41.7%) and 92 (31.8%) serious TEAEs; 205 (85.4%) and 246 (85.1%) treatment-related AEs; and 13 (5.4%) and 6 (2.1%) fatal TEAEs, respectively, were observed. Number of TEAEs and serious TEAEs by cycle of onset are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Over 50% of patients with mCRPC received 5–6 cycles of 177Lu-PSMA-617. For cycles 1–5, TEAEs occurred at every cycle, with similar frequency. More TEAEs were observed in cycle 6, reflecting its longer median duration than other cycles. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664. [Table: see text]

Comparison of the safety and clinical efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and α-glucosidase inhibitor among Chinese people with type 2 diabetes

&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of once-weekly prescription of GLP-1 receptor agonists (adlyxin) with those of α-glucosidase inhibitor (voglibose) and other reference drugs (RD).&#x0D; Methods: A total of 1250 stable diabetes-mellitus patients from the Department of Endocrinology, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040, China were enrolled in this study between Feb 2018 and Jan 2020. They were treated using physical exercise and diet chart therapy. The patients were assigned to three different groups and administered GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) or glucosidase inhibitor (voglibose) and other reference drugs (RDs). The safety and efficacy of these drugs were compared. The primary endpoint was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), while the secondary endpoints were based on symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes and other biochemical parameters.&#x0D; Results: Patients who used α-glucosidase inhibitors had the highest percentage of TEAEs, when compared to those on GLP-1RAs and RDs (p &lt; 0.05). No specific cases of severe hypoglycaemia were observed among all the groups. Users of adlyxin also achieved significant glycaemic control at the end of the study period, when compared to voglibose users, with a mean HbA1c baseline of 8.2 % (p &lt; 0.05).&#x0D; Conclusion: These results indicate that the GLP-1 receptor agonist adlyxin achieved good glycaemic control. Thus, it has beneficial potential for use among type 2 diabetes in the Chinese population.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

Is There a Place for Complement Inhibition with Monoclonal Anti-C5a Antibody Vilobelimab in the Treatment of Patients with ANCA-associated Vasculitis?

Recent studies have implicated the complement system in the pathogenesis of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV), prompting the development of novel therapeutic agents to target the complement system accordingly. The pivotal role of complement component C5a, in particular, has been the subject of a number of phase II and phase III clinical trials. Indeed, the US Food and Drug Administration has already approved avacopan, an oral C5a receptor inhibitor, as an adjunct for the treatment of active severe AAV, based on its favourable safety profile and non-inferiority to glucocorticoids (GCs) (at Week 26). The novel monoclonal anti-C5a antibody vilobelimab has also been studied in a phase II trial in patients with AAV (IXchange; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03895801). The results appear promising; in addition to decreased GC toxicity index, a smaller number of treatment-emergent adverse events have been observed in vilobelimab-treated patients. However, the study was not powered statistically to compare the efficacy of vilobelimab to standard GC treatment. This editorial summarizes the study findings and outlines potential future directions.

Interventions for preventing diarrhoea-associated haemolytic uraemic syndrome.

Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) is a common cause of acquired kidney failure in children and rarely in adults. The most important risk factor for development of HUS is a gastrointestinal infection by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC). This review addressed the interventions aimed at secondary prevention of HUS in patients with diarrhoea who were infected with a bacteria that increase the risk of HUS. Our objective was to evaluate evidence regarding secondary preventative strategies for HUS associated with STEC infections. In doing so, we sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions as well as their potential to impact the morbidity and death associated with this condition. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 November 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies were considered based on the methods, participants, and research goals. Only randomised controlled trials were considered eligible for inclusion. The participants of the studies were paediatric and adult patients with diarrhoeal illnesses due to STEC. The primary outcome of interest was incidence of HUS. We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified four studies (536 participants) for inclusion that investigated four different interventions including antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), anti-Shiga toxin antibody-containing bovine colostrum, Shiga toxin binding agent (Synsorb Pk: a silicon dioxide-based agent), and a monoclonal antibody against Shiga toxin (urtoxazumab). The overall risk of bias was unclear for selection, performance and detection bias and low for attrition, reporting and other sources of bias. It was uncertain if trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole reduced the incidence of HUS compared to no treatment (47 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.11-2.81, very low certainty evidence). Adverse events relative to this review, need for acute dialysis, neurological complication and death were not reported. There were no incidences of HUS in either the bovine colostrum group or the placebo group. It was uncertain if bovine colostrum caused more adverse events (27 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.03; very low certainty evidence). The need for acute dialysis, neurological complications or death were not reported. It is uncertain whether Synsorb Pk reduces the incidence of HUS compared to placebo (353 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.22; very low certainty evidence). Adverse events relevant to this review, need for acute dialysis, neurological complications or death were not reported. One study compared two doses of urtoxazumab (3.0 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) to placebo. It is uncertain if either 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (71 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14) or 1.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (74 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13) reduced the incidence of HUS compared to placebo (very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence showed there may be little or no difference in the number of treatment-emergent adverse events with either 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (71 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18) or 1.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab (74 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13) compared to placebo. There were 25 serious adverse events reported in 18 patients: 10 in the placebo group, and 9 and 6 serious adverse events in the 1.0 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg urtoxazumab groups, respectively. It is unclear how many patients experienced these adverse events in each group, and how many patients experienced more than one event. It is uncertain if either dose of urtoxazumab increased the risk of neurological complications or death (very low certainty evidence). Need for acute dialysis was not reported. The included studies assessed antibiotics, bovine milk, and Shiga toxin inhibitor (Synsorb Pk) and monoclonal antibodies (Urtoxazumab) against Shiga toxin for secondary prevention of HUS in patients with diarrhoea due to STEC. However, no firm conclusions about the efficacy of these interventions can be drawn given the small number of included studies and the small sample sizes of those included studies. Additional studies, including larger multicentre studies, are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions to prevent development of HUS in patients with diarrhoea due to STEC infection.

MO542MOLIDUSTAT FOR ANAEMIA IN JAPANESE PATIENTS UNDERGOING PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: A SINGLE ARM, OPEN-LABEL, PHASE 3 STUDY

Abstract Background and Aims Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are the standard of care for anaemia due to chronic kidney disease (renal anaemia). Molidustat, a novel hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase (HIF–PH) inhibitor for the treatment of renal anaemia, could offer an alternative to ESAs. Molidustat was evaluated in the “molidustat once daily improves renal anaemia by inducing erythropoietin (MIYABI) program”, comprising five phase 3 studies. The present study investigated the safety and efficacy of molidustat in Japanese patients with renal anaemia undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) and previously treated with ESAs or not. Method This was a 36-week, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study in Japanese patients ≥20 years with renal anaemia undergoing PD and not expected to start maintenance haemodialysis. Molidustat was administered once daily at a starting dose of 75 mg. Doses were titrated every 4 weeks based on the patient’s haemoglobin (Hb) response to the previous dose during visits to maintain the Hb level within the target range of ≥ 11.0 g/dL to &amp;lt; 13.0 g/dL (Japanese guidelines). The primary efficacy outcome was the responder rate, defined as the proportion of patients who meet all of the following criteria: (1) mean Hb level during the evaluation period in the target range from week 30 to week 36; (2) ≥50% of Hb values within the target range during the evaluation period; (3) no rescue treatment before the end of the evaluation period. Other outcomes included mean Hb level during the evaluation period and its change from baseline, Hb level at each visit and the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results Overall, 51 patients received molidustat (49 ESA-treated; 2 ESA-untreated) and 36 (70.6%) completed treatment. Mean age was 63.3 years, mean body weight was 62.4 kg and 62.7% were male. Mean baseline Hb level was 11.19 g/dL and mean duration of peritoneal dialysis was 2.8 years. Over the study period, mean treatment duration was 200.8 days with a mean dosage of 93.8 mg/day. The responder rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) during the evaluation period was 54.9% (40.3, 68.9). The proportions of patients meeting criterion (1), (2) or (3) were 54.9%, 58.8% and 92.2%, respectively. The mean (95% CI) for mean Hb level during the evaluation period was 11.18 (10.83, 11.54) g/dL and the mean (95% CI) for the change in mean Hb level during the evaluation period from baseline was 0.00 (–0.41, 0.41) g/dL. Mean Hb level stayed in the target range from week 12–36. Of the 15 patients who did not complete treatment, 9 discontinued because of a TEAE, 4 initiated rescue treatment and 2 progressed to maintenance haemodialysis. Overall, 98.0% of patients experienced ≥1 TEAE during the study; most TEAEs were mild (49.0%) or moderate (37.3%) in intensity. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (35.3%), constipation and medical device site infection (11.8% each). No deaths were reported, and major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% of patients. Conclusion In this phase 3, single-arm, open-label study, over 70% of patients completed the study and more than half of the patients met the responder criteria. Molidustat maintained Hb in the prespecified range (≥ 11.0 g/dL to &amp;lt; 13.0 g/dL) and was well-tolerated over the 36 weeks of treatment. Molidustat offers a potential alternative to ESAs in patients with renal anaemia undergoing PD.

Effectiveness and safety of 1L PEG-ASC preparation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

IntroductionThe effectiveness of bowel cleansing is a key element for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) solution has been introduced, but effectiveness and safety of this preparation have not been assessed in IBD patients. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in patients with IBD compared to controls. MethodsWe retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data on a cohort of 411 patients performing a colonoscopy after preparation with 1 L PEG-ASC, consecutively enrolled in 5 Italian centres. ResultsOverall, 185/411 (45%) were patients with IBD and 226/411 (55%) served as controls. A significantly higher cleansing success was achieved in IBD patients (92.9% vs 85.4%, p = 0.02). The multiple regression model showed that presence of IBD (OR=2.514, 95%CI=1.165–5.426; P = 0.019), lower age (OR=0.981, 95%CI=0.967–0.996; P = 0.014), split preparation (OR=2.430, 95%CI=1.076–5.492; P = 0.033), absence of diabetes (OR=2.848, 95%CI=1.228–6.605; P = 0.015), and of chronic constipation (OR=3.350, 95%CI=1.429–7.852; P = 0.005), were independently associated with cleansing success. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (51 vs 62%, p = 0.821), and of patients with TEAEs (22.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.821), were similar in IBD patients and in controls, respectively. ConclusionsResults from this study support the effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in IBD patients, which may improve the definition of endoscopic outcomes both in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of concomitant administration of multiple doses of cagrilintide with semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management: a randomised, controlled, phase 1b trial

Cagrilintide, a long-acting amylin analogue, and semaglutide 2·4 mg, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, are both being investigated as options for weight management. We aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of this drug combination. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose, phase 1b trial, individuals aged 18-55 years with a body-mass index 27·0-39·9 kg/m2 and who were otherwise healthy were recruited from a single centre in the USA. The trial included six sequential overlapping cohorts, and in each cohort eligible participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous cagrilintide (0·16, 0·30, 0·60, 1·2, 2·4, or 4·5 mg) or matched placebo, in combination with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg, without lifestyle interventions. In each cohort, the doses of cagrilintide and semaglutide were co-escalated in 4-week intervals to the desired dose over 16 weeks, participants were treated at the target dose for 4 weeks, and then followed up for 5 weeks. Participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events from baseline to end of follow-up. Secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints assessed from day of last dose (week 19) to end of treatment (week 20) were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 168 h (AUC0-168 h) and maximum concentration [Cmax] of cagrilintide and semaglutide; exploratory pharmacokinetic endpoints were half-life, time to Cmax [tmax], plasma clearance, and volume of distribution of cagrilintide and semaglutide; and exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints were changes in bodyweight, glycaemic parameters, and hormones. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints were assessed in all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600480, and is now complete. Between July 25, 2018, and Dec 17, 2019, 285 individuals were screened and 96 were randomly assigned to cagrilintide (0·16-2·4 mg group n=12; 4·5 mg group n=11) or placebo (n=24), in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg, of whom 95 were exposed to treatment (one patient in 0·60 mg cagrilintide group was not exposed) and included in the safety and full analysis datasets. The mean age was 40·6 years (SD 9·2), 56 (59%) of 95 participants were men and 51 (54%) were Black or African American. Of 566 adverse events reported in 92 participants (69 [97%] of 71 participants assigned to 0·16-4·5 mg cagrilintide and 23 [96%] of 24 assigned to placebo), 207 (37%) were gastrointestinal disorders. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and the proportion of participants with one or more adverse event was similar across treatment groups. Exposure was proportional to cagrilintide dose and did not affect semaglutide exposure or elimination. AUC0-168 h ranged from 926 nmol × h/L to 24 271 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 6·14 nmol/L to 170 nmol/L with cagrilintide 0·16-4·5 mg. AUC0-168 h ranged from 12 757 nmol × h/L to 15 305 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 96·4 nmol/L to 120 nmol/L with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Cagrilintide 0·16-4·5 mg had a half-life of 159-195 h, with a median tmax of 24-72 h. Semaglutide 2·4 mg had a half-life of 145-165 h, with a median tmax of 12-24 h. Plasma clearance and volume of distribution for both cagrilintide and semaglutide were similar across treatment groups. At week 20, mean percentage bodyweight reductions were greater with cagrilintide 1·2 and 2·4 mg than with placebo (15·7% [SE 1·6] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and 17·1% [1·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs 9·8% [1·2] for pooled placebo cohorts 1-5; estimated treatment difference of -6·0% [95% CI -9·9 to -2·0] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and -7·4% [-11·2 to -3·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs pooled placebo), and with cagrilintide 4·5 mg than with matched placebo (15·4% [1·3] vs 8·0% [2·2]; estimated treatment difference -7·4% [-12·8 to -2·1]), all in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Glycaemic parameters improved in all treatment groups, independently of cagrilintide dose. Changes in hormones were similar across treatment groups. Concomitant treatment with cagrilintide and semaglutide 2·4 mg was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Future larger and longer trials are needed to fully assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment combination. Novo Nordisk A/S.

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories. CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed. Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group. Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments. Eli Lilly.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Verbascox&lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt; − a proprietary herbal extract capable of inhibiting human cyclooxygenase-2 − and celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis

The aim of this randomized, single-blind, active-controlled pilot study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of oral supplementation with Verbascox®, a proprietary herbal extract capable of inhibiting human cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), in patients with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Patients in the control group (n = 50) did not undergo any treatment (watchful waiting). Patients in the Verbascox® group (n = 50) received oral supplementation (800 mg/day) with the herbal extract for 2 weeks. The final study group consisted of patients (n = 50) who received celecoxib, a known pharmacological inhibitor of COX-2, 200 mg/day for 2 weeks. Examining physicians and laboratory personnel were blinded to group assignment, whereas patients were unblinded. All participants were evaluated using standard measures of pain relief and improvement in functional capacity at baseline, after 1 week, and at the end of the 2-week treatment course. Moreover, serum levels of substance P (SP), a member of the tachykinin family of neuropeptides involved in pain perception, were measured at the three time points. Both Verbascox® and celecoxib reduced pain, improved functional capacity, and lowered serum SP levels at 2 weeks compared with baseline, without significant inter-arm differences. Both Verbascox® and celecoxib showed a limited number of treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, oral supplementation with Verbascox® (800 mg/day) in patients with mild-to-moderate OA of the knee is as effective and safe as a standard therapeutic dose of celecoxib in terms of pain relief and improvement in functional capacity after a 2-week treatment course.

Safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide versus dulaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 10): an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3a trial

New glucose-lowering medications need to be investigated in east Asian populations, as the clinical characteristics of type 2 diabetes differ between western and east Asian patients. The PIONEER 10 study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide versus dulaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. PIONEER 10 was an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3a trial done at 36 sites (clinics and university hospitals) in Japan. Patients aged 20 years and older with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1) to receive once-daily oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg, or once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0·75 mg for 52 weeks, as an add-on to their background medication. The primary endpoint was the number of treatment-emergent adverse events over 57 weeks. Supportive secondary endpoints (not controlled for multiplicity) included mean change from baseline in HbA1c and bodyweight at 52 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03015220. Between Jan 10, and May 30, 2017, 492 patients were screened and 458 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=131), 7 mg (n=132), or 14 mg (n=130), or dulaglutide 0·75 mg (n=65). 448 (98%) patients completed the trial. Adverse events occurred in 101 (77%) of 131 patients with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 106 (80%) of 132 with oral semaglutide 7 mg, 111 (85%) of 130 with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and 53 (82%) of 65 with dulaglutide. The most common adverse events were infections and gastrointestinal events. Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild and transient constipation and nausea) occurred in a dose-dependent manner with oral semaglutide. Adverse events led to premature treatment discontinuation in four (3%) of 131 patients receiving oral semaglutide 3 mg, eight (6%) of 132 receiving oral semaglutide 7 mg, eight (6%) of 130 receiving oral semaglutide 14 mg, and two (3%) of 65 receiving dulaglutide. No deaths or severe hypoglycaemic events were reported. Based on the treatment policy estimand (ie, regardless of study drug discontinuation or rescue medication use), estimated mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline (8·3%) to week 52 were -0·9 percentage points (SE 0·1) with oral semaglutide 3 mg, -1·4 percentage points (0·1) with oral semaglutide 7 mg, -1·7 percentage points (0·1) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and -1·4 percentage points (0·1) with dulaglutide (estimated treatment difference -0·3% [95% CI -0·6 to -0·1] for oral semaglutide 14 mg vs dulaglutide; p=0·0170). Estimated mean changes in bodyweight from baseline (72·1 kg) to week 52 were 0·0 kg (SE 0·3) with oral semaglutide 3 mg, -0·9 kg (0·3) with oral semaglutide 7 mg, -1·6 kg (0·3) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, and 1·0 kg (0·4) with dulaglutide (estimated treatment difference -2·6 kg [95% CI -3·5 to -1·6] for oral semaglutide 14 mg vs dulaglutide; p<0·0001). Oral semaglutide was well tolerated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Once-daily oral semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c (14 mg dose) and bodyweight (7 mg and 14 mg doses) versus weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0·75 mg by week 52. Novo Nordisk.