Aparna Raychaudhuri

Repeated subcutaneous injections of IL12/23 p40 neutralising antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND Repeated subcutaneous injections of a monoclonal antibody against the p40 subunit of interleukins 12 and 23, ustekinumab, were used to treat patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to assess the drugs safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics. METHODS In this phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 249 patients with RRMS, aged 18-65 years, were eligible to be assigned equally (by a central randomisation procedure based on study site and presence or absence of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions at baseline) to one of five groups that received placebo or four different ustekinumab dosages at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. Ustekinumab doses were 27 mg, 90 mg q8w, 90 mg, or 180 mg; the 90 mg q8w dosage group received placebo substitute at weeks 7 and 15. The primary endpoint was the cumulative number of new gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on serial cranial MRI through week 23. Patients were followed up through week 37. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00207727. FINDINGS From August, 2004, to December, 2006, 249 patients underwent randomisation (49 for placebo; 50 for each ustekinumab group). Ustekinumab treatment did not show a significant reduction in the primary endpoint for any dosage groups versus placebo. At week 37, adverse events occurred in 38 (78%) placebo-treated patients and 170 (85%) ustekinumab-treated patients, with infections most commonly reported. Serious adverse events occurred in one (2%) placebo-treated patient and six (3%) ustekinumab-treated patients. Malignant diseases were reported in two patients shortly after the initiation of ustekinumab treatment; both patients were withdrawn from the trial and given appropriate treatment, which resulted in complete remission. No serious infections, cardiovascular events, or exacerbation of demyelinating events occurred. A dose-dependent increase in serum concentrations of ustekinumab was recorded. INTERPRETATION Ustekinumab is generally well tolerated but does not show efficacy in reducing the cumulative number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions in multiple sclerosis.

A phase I trial of an interleukin‐12/23 monoclonal antibody in relapsing multiple sclerosis

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of an interleukin (IL)-12/23 monoclonal antibody (mAb) in subjects with a relapsing form of multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: A phase I, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose escalation study was conducted in 20 subjects with MS. Subjects were randomized (4:1) to receive a single subcutaneous injection of either IL‐12/23 mAb (0.3, 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg) or placebo. Clinical and laboratory evaluations were performed through 16 weeks following administration. Results: IL‐12/23 mAb was well tolerated in this study. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate, with no apparent dose-related trends. One subject with a family history of breast cancer was diagnosed during the study with breast cancer 21 days after IL‐12/23 mAb administration. There were no significant changes in laboratory indicators of systemic or neurotoxicity. There was a large degree of variability in T2 lesion volume and total number of gadolinium-positive lesions, both unaffected by dose escalation. Three relapses of MS occurred in two placebo-treated subjects. Over the range of single doses studied, the median Tmax ranged from 9.0 to 16.5 days, and the median T1/2 ranged from 20.2 to 30.9 days. Conclusion: Single subcutaneous administrations of IL‐12/23 mAb in this first study of relapsing MS were generally well tolerated. Safety of the agent will need to be tested in a study of longer duration and involving a larger cohort of subjects.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who report clinically significant impairment in executive function: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE Behavioral rating scales that assess impairments in executive function commonly associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may offer advantages over neuropsychological testing. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for executive function deficits in adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function impairment using self-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) assessments. METHOD This randomized double-blind study, conducted between May 2010 and November 2010, screened at least 1 participant at 35 of 39 registered US clinical research sites. Adults (aged 18-55 years) with a primary ADHD diagnosis (meeting full DSM-IV-TR criteria) and executive function deficits (assessed by baseline BRIEF-A Global Executive Composite [GEC] T-scores of at least 65) were randomized to treatment with optimized lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30 mg/d, 50 mg/d, or 70 mg/d; n = 80) or placebo (n = 81) during a 10-week double-blind treatment period. Outcome measures included the BRIEF-A scales (GEC, index, and clinical subscales). RESULTS At week 10 or at early termination, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean BRIEF-A GEC T-scores than placebo (effect size, 0.74; P < .0001) and significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean T-scores for both BRIEF-A index scales (Behavioral Regulation Index and Metacognition Index) and all 9 clinical subscales (P ≤ .0056 for all). At week 10 or at early termination, mean T-scores for BRIEF-A indexes and clinical subscales were below levels of clinically significant executive function deficits (ie, < 65) with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment. The mean (SD) GEC T-score was 57.2 (14.11) for the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate group and 68.3 (17.12) for the placebo group. The safety profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was consistent with other long-acting psychostimulants. CONCLUSION Among adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function deficits, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significant improvements in self-reported executive function ratings. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01101022.

Safety of Lifitegrast Ophthalmic Solution 5.0% in Patients With Dry Eye Disease: A 1-Year, Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year safety of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in patients with dry eye disease compared with placebo. Methods: SONATA (Safety Of a 5.0% coNcentrATion of lifitegrAst ophthalmic solution) was a multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT01636206). Adults (≥18 years) with dry eye disease (Schirmer test score ≥1 and ⩽10 mm; corneal staining score ≥2.0) were randomized 2:1 to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 360 days. The primary objective was percentage and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary objectives were ocular safety measures: corneal fluorescein staining, drop comfort, best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and intraocular pressure over 7 visits. Exploratory objectives included concentration of lifitegrast in plasma. Results: The safety population comprised 331 participants (220 lifitegrast; 111 placebo). There were no serious ocular TEAEs. Overall, 53.6% of participants receiving lifitegrast experienced ≥1 ocular TEAE versus 34.2% in the placebo group; most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. Rates of discontinuation because of TEAEs were 12.3% (lifitegrast) versus 9.0% (placebo). The most common (>5%) TEAEs occurring in either treatment group were instillation site irritation (burning), instillation site reaction, visual acuity reduced, dry eye, and dysgeusia (change in taste). Ocular safety parameters for lifitegrast were similar to placebo. The mean plasma lifitegrast concentration at 360 days (n = 43) was below the limit of detection. There was no indication of systemic toxicity or localized infectious complications secondary to chronic immunosuppression. Conclusions: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% seemed safe and well tolerated in this study, with no unexpected adverse events.

Self-Reported quality of life in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and executive function impairment treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

BackgroundThis study examined the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on quality of life (QOL) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinically significant executive function deficits (EFD).MethodsThis report highlights QOL findings from a 10-week randomized placebo-controlled trial of LDX (30–70 mg/d) in adults (18–55 years) with ADHD and EFD (Behavior Rating Inventory of EF-Adult, Global Executive Composite [BRIEF-A GEC] ≥65). The primary efficacy measure was the self-reported BRIEF-A; a key secondary measure was self-reported QOL on the Adult ADHD Impact Module (AIM-A). The clinician-completed ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) were also employed. The Adult ADHD QoL (AAQoL) was added while the study was in progress. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup having evaluable results from both AIM-A and AAQoL.ResultsOf 161 randomized (placebo, 81; LDX, 80), 159 were included in the safety population. LDX improved AIM-A multi-item domain scores versus placebo; LS mean difference for Performance and Daily Functioning was 21.6 (ES, 0.93, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference was 14.9 (ES, 0.62, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Bother/Concern was 13.5 (ES, 0.57, P=.0003); Relationships/Communication was 7.8 (ES, 0.31, P=.0302); Living With ADHD was 9.1 (ES, 0.79, P<.0001); and General Well-Being was 10.8 (ES, 0.70, P<.0001). AAQoL LS mean difference for total score was 21.0; for subscale: Life Productivity was 21.0; Psychological Health was 12.1; Life Outlook was 12.5; and Relationships was 7.3. In a post hoc analysis of participants with both AIM-A and AAQoL scores, AIM-A multi-item subgroup analysis scores numerically improved with LDX, with smaller difference for Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with amphetamine use in previous studies.ConclusionsOverall, adults with ADHD/EFD exhibited self-reported improvement on QOL, using the AIM-A and AAQoL scales in line with medium/large ES; these improvements were paralleled by improvements in EF and ADHD symptoms. The safety profile of LDX was similar to previous studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01101022

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Abstract Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed. Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100). Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p = 0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p = 0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p = 0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p < 0.0001). Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed. Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with clinically stable schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ascending multiple doses.

Abstract To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, this double-blind study enrolled adults with clinically stable schizophrenia who were adherent (≥12 weeks) to antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. The participants received placebo or ascending LDX doses (50, 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mg) daily for 5 days at each dose (dose periods, 1–6; days, 1–5). Of the 31 enrolled participants, 27 completed the study (placebo, n = 6; LDX, n = 21). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported by 4 participants receiving placebo and by 23 participants receiving LDX (all doses) with no serious AEs while on active treatment. For all periods, the mean postdose change on day 5 (up to 12 hours postdose) in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse, respectively, ranged from −4.62 to 8.05 mm Hg, −3.67 to 4.43 mm Hg, and −3.57 to 14.43 beats per minute for placebo and −3.83 to 11.25 mm Hg, −1.55 to 5.80 mm Hg, and −0.36 to 21.26 beats per minute for LDX. With ascending LDX dose, the mean (SD) maximum plasma concentration for LDX-derived d-amphetamine ranged from 51.68 (10.28) to 266.27 (56.55) ng/mL. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for 24 hours ranged from 801.8 (170.2) to 4397.9 (1085.9) ng[BULLET OPERATOR]h/mL. The d-amphetamine maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve increased linearly with ascending LDX dose. Antipsychotic agents did not markedly affect d-amphetamine pharmacokinetics. Over a wide range of ascending doses, LDX safety profile in adults with schizophrenia was consistent with previous findings with no unexpected treatment-emergent AEs. Pulse tended to increase with LDX dose; overall, blood pressure did not increase with LDX dose. Consistent with previous studies, pharmacokinetic parameters increased linearly with increasing LDX dose.

Safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0%: Pooled analysis of five randomized controlled trials in dry eye disease

Purpose: Characterize the safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for the treatment of dry eye disease. Methods: Pooled data from five randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria were adults with dry eye disease (Schirmer tear test score ⩾1 and ⩽10 mm, eye dryness score ⩾40 (visual analog scale 0–100), corneal staining score ⩾2.0 (0–4 scale)). Participants were randomized to lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% or placebo twice daily for 84 or 360 days. Treatment-emergent adverse events and drop comfort scores were assessed. Results: Overall, 2464 participants (lifitegrast, n = 1287; placebo, n = 1177) were included. Ocular treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in >5% in either group were instillation site irritation (lifitegrast, 15.2%; placebo, 2.8%), instillation site reaction (lifitegrast, 12.3%; placebo, 2.3%), and instillation site pain (lifitegrast, 9.8%; placebo, 2.1%); the most common (> 5%) nonocular treatment-emergent adverse event was dysgeusia (lifitegrast, 14.5%; placebo, 0.3%). The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. Discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 7.0% (lifitegrast) versus 2.6% (placebo) of participants (ocular: 5.5% vs 1.5%; nonocular: 1.9% vs 1.1%). Drop comfort scores with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation and the score at 3 min improved across visits (12-week trials (both eyes, day 84 vs 0): 2.0 vs 3.3; SONATA (day 360 vs 0): right eye, 1.2 vs 1.7; left eye, 1.2 vs 1.8). Conclusion: Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% appeared to be safe and well tolerated for the treatment of dry eye disease. Drop comfort with lifitegrast improved within 3 min of instillation.

Ocular comfort assessment of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in OPUS-3, a Phase III randomized controlled trial [Corrigendum]

[This corrects the article on p. 263 in vol. 12, PMID: 29440868.].