Bernhardt Zeiher

Isavuconazole versus voriconazole for primary treatment of invasive mould disease caused by Aspergillus and other filamentous fungi (SECURE): A phase 3, randomised-controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Isavuconazole is a novel triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. The SECURE trial assessed efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole in patients with invasive mould disease. METHODS This was a phase 3, double-blind, global multicentre, comparative-group study. Patients with suspected invasive mould disease were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using an interactive voice-web response system, stratified by geographical region, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation, and active malignant disease at baseline, to receive isavuconazonium sulfate 372 mg (prodrug; equivalent to 200 mg isavuconazole; intravenously three times a day on days 1 and 2, then either intravenously or orally once daily) or voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 1, 4 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 2, then intravenously 4 mg/kg twice daily or orally 200 mg twice daily from day 3 onwards). We tested non-inferiority of the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) using a 10% non-inferiority margin. Safety was assessed in patients who received the first dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00412893. FINDINGS 527 adult patients were randomly assigned (258 received study medication per group) between March 7, 2007, and March 28, 2013. All-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 for the ITT population was 19% with isavuconazole (48 patients) and 20% with voriconazole (52 patients), with an adjusted treatment difference of -1·0% (95% CI -7·8 to 5·7). Because the upper bound of the 95% CI (5·7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown. Most patients (247 [96%] receiving isavuconazole and 255 [98%] receiving voriconazole) had treatment-emergent adverse events (p=0·122); the most common were gastrointestinal disorders (174 [68%] vs 180 [69%]) and infections and infestations (152 [59%] vs 158 [61%]). Proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were similar overall. However, isavuconazole-treated patients had a lower frequency of hepatobiliary disorders (23 [9%] vs 42 [16%]; p=0·016), eye disorders (39 [15%] vs 69 [27%]; p=0·002), and skin or subcutaneous tissue disorders (86 [33%] vs 110 [42%]; p=0·037). Drug-related adverse events were reported in 109 (42%) patients receiving isavuconazole and 155 (60%) receiving voriconazole (p<0·001). INTERPRETATION Isavuconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for the primary treatment of suspected invasive mould disease. Isavuconazole was well tolerated compared with voriconazole, with fewer study-drug-related adverse events. Our results support the use of isavuconazole for the primary treatment of patients with invasive mould disease. FUNDING Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.

Isavuconazole treatment for mucormycosis: a single-arm open-label trial and case-control analysis

BACKGROUND Mucormycosis is an uncommon invasive fungal disease with high mortality and few treatment options. Isavuconazole is a triazole active in vitro and in animal models against moulds of the order Mucorales. We assessed the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of mucormycosis and compared its efficacy with amphotericin B in a matched case-control analysis. METHODS In a single-arm open-label trial (VITAL study), adult patients (≥18 years) with invasive fungal disease caused by rare fungi, including mucormycosis, were recruited from 34 centres worldwide. Patients were given isavuconazole 200 mg (as its intravenous or oral water-soluble prodrug, isavuconazonium sulfate) three times daily for six doses, followed by 200 mg/day until invasive fungal disease resolution, failure, or for 180 days or more. The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response-ie, complete or partial response (treatment success) or stable or progressive disease (treatment failure)-according to prespecified criteria. Mucormycosis cases treated with isavuconazole as primary treatment were matched with controls from the FungiScope Registry, recruited from 17 centres worldwide, who received primary amphotericin B-based treatment, and were analysed for day-42 all-cause mortality. VITAL is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00634049. FungiScope is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01731353. FINDINGS Within the VITAL study, from April 22, 2008, to June 21, 2013, 37 patients with mucormycosis received isavuconazole for a median of 84 days (IQR 19-179, range 2-882). By day 42, four patients (11%) had a partial response, 16 (43%) had stable invasive fungal disease, one (3%) had invasive fungal disease progression, three (8%) had missing assessments, and 13 (35%) had died. 35 patients (95%) had adverse events (28 [76%] serious). Day-42 crude all-cause mortality in seven (33%) of 21 primary-treatment isavuconazole cases was similar to 13 (39%) of 33 amphotericin B-treated matched controls (weighted all-cause mortality: 33% vs 41%; p=0·595). INTERPRETATION Isavuconazole showed activity against mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B. Isavuconazole can be used for treatment of mucormycosis and is well tolerated. FUNDING Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.

An International, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase III Trial of Pregabalin Monotherapy in Treatment of Patients with Fibromyalgia

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin monotherapy versus placebo for symptomatic pain relief and improvement of patient global assessment in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) enrolled from countries outside the United States. Methods. This international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned 747 patients with FM to placebo or 300, 450, or 600 mg/day pregabalin twice daily for 14 weeks. Primary efficacy measures were endpoint mean pain scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Secondary outcomes included assessments of sleep and function. Results. Patients in the 450 mg/day pregabalin group showed significant improvements versus placebo in endpoint mean pain score (−0.56; p = 0.0132), PGIC (73% improved vs 56% placebo; p = 0.0017), and function [Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score −5.85; p = 0.0012]. PGIC was also significant for 600 mg/day pregabalin (69% improved; p = 0.0227). Results for these endpoints were nonsignificant for pregabalin at 300 mg/day and for pain and FIQ score at 600 mg/day. Early onset of pain relief was seen, with separation from placebo detected by Week 1 in all pregabalin groups. All pregabalin doses demonstrated superiority to placebo on the Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale Sleep Disturbance subscale and the Sleep Quality diary. Dizziness and somnolence were the most frequently reported adverse events. Conclusion. Pregabalin demonstrated modest efficacy in pain, global assessment, and function in FM at 450 mg/day, and improved sleep across all dose levels, but it did not provide consistent evidence of benefit at 300 and 600 mg/day in this study. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated for the treatment of FM. (Clinical trial registry NCT00333866).

Safety Profile and Tolerability of Up to 1 Year of Pregabalin Treatment in 3 Open-Label Extension Studies in Patients With Fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND Pain relief and an acceptable safety profile have been reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) for up to 14 weeks. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety profile and tolerability of pregabalin (75-300 mg BID) treatment for up to 1 year in patients with FM. METHODS Twelve-week data were pooled from 3 open-label extension studies of pivotal RCTs. Study 1 was a 1-year extension of a 13-week RCT, and studies 2 and 3 were 12-week extensions of 14-week RCTs. The 1-year data were separately evaluated. The open-label data are summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Overall, 1206 patients (92.4% female) with a mean (SD) age of 48.8 (10.7) years received open-label extended pregabalin treatment. A total of 119 of 1206 patients (9.9%) permanently discontinued study participation due to treatment-emergent adverse events (all causality) at 12 weeks (pooled data) and 53 of 429 (12.4%) within 1 year. Consistent with previous RCTs, the most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events with open-label pregabalin treatment were dizziness, somnolence, headache, peripheral edema, and increased weight. The highest incidence rates in the pooled 12-week data were for dizziness (214 of 1206; 17.7%) and somnolence (96 of 1206; 8.0%). In ratings of severity (mild, moderate, severe), most were reported as mild to moderate. The mean (SD) change in patient-reported visual analog scale pain scores (0-100) from the open-label baseline to the end of treatment was -21 (30.5) in study 1 (1 year), -26.7 (28.8) in study 2 (12 weeks), and -20.1 (26.8) in study 3 (12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS The data from these extension studies suggest that the adverse event safety profile and tolerability of patients with FM treated with open-label pregabalin (75-300 mg BID) for up to 1 year were stable and were consistent with those of previous studies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00151528 (A0081057 [study 1]), NCT00282997 (A0081078 [study 2]), and NCT00346034 (A0081101 [study 3]).

Long-term Maintenance of Response Across Multiple Fibromyalgia Symptom Domains in a Randomized Withdrawal Study of Pregabalin

Objective: To determine the incidence and duration of response of clinically meaningful improvements with pregabalin across several key symptoms of fibromyalgia (FM). Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, withdrawal study, originally designed to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin monotherapy for durability of effect on FM pain based on pain and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) criteria. Responder criteria for Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score (≥16-point change), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale Sleep Disturbance subscale (≥15.8-point change), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey Vitality scale (≥10-point change) were used to evaluate the incidence and duration of improvements in function, sleep, and fatigue for pregabalin versus placebo among pain and PGIC responders. A composite responder index consisting of pain, PGIC, function, and sleep endpoints was used to explore multidimensional response. Results: Approximately 80% of patients meeting pain and PGIC improvement criteria at randomization had clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue, sleep, or function. Higher proportions of patients in the pregabalin group maintained a clinically meaningful response, and pregabalin-treated patients had a significantly longer time to loss of therapeutic response compared with the placebo group. Composite responder Kaplan-Meier analysis, performed with patients demonstrating clinically meaningful improvements in pain, PGIC, function, and sleep at randomization showed a significantly longer median time to loss of therapeutic response for pregabalin-treated patients. Discussion: The results from this post hoc analysis indicate that pregabalin provides long-term effects across multiple domains of FM (ClinicalTrials.gov registry ID: NCT00151489).

1211A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Isavuconazole versus Voriconazole in Patients with Invasive Mold Disease (SECURE): Outcomes in Invasive Aspergillosis Patients

1210. A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-inferiority Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Isavuconazole versus Voriconazole in Patients with Invasive Mold Disease (SECURE): Outcomes in Neutropenic Patients Thomas Patterson,; Dominik Selleslag,; Kathleen Mullane,; Oliver Cornely,; William Hope,; Olivier Lortholary,; Bernhardt Zeiher,; Rochelle Maher,; Misun Lee,; Wenmei Huang,; Dimitrios Kontoyiannis,; The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX; A.Z. Sint-Jan, Brugge, Belgium; University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL; Uniklinik koln, Cologne, Germany; Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; ., Institut Pasteur, Paris, France; Astellas Pharma Global Development, Northbrook, IL; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Qualitative Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Measure in Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome

OBJECTIVES:Despite a documented clinical need, no patient reported outcome (PRO) symptom measure meeting current regulatory requirements for clinically relevant end points is available for the evaluation of treatment benefit in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D).METHODS:Patients (N=113) with IBS-D participated in five study phases: (1) eight concept elicitation focus groups (N=34), from which a 17-item IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and four-item IBS-D Symptom Event Log (Diary and Event Log) were developed; (2) one-on-one cognitive interviews (N=11) to assess the instrument’s comprehensiveness, understandability, appropriateness, and readability; (3) four data triangulation focus groups (N=32) to confirm the concepts elicited; (4) two hybrid (concept elicitation and cognitive interview) focus groups (N=16); and (5) two iterative sets of one-on-one cognitive interviews (N=20) to further clarify the symptoms of IBS-D and debrief a revised seven-item Diary and four-item Event Log.RESULTS:Of thirty-six concepts initially identified, 22 were excluded because they were not saturated, not clinically relevant, not critical symptoms of IBS-D, considered upper GI symptoms, or too broad or vaguely defined. The remaining concepts were diarrhea, immediate need (urgency), bloating/pressure, frequency of bowel movements, cramps, abdominal/stomach pain, gas, completely emptied bowels/incomplete evacuation, accidents, bubbling in intestines (bowel sounds), rectal burning, stool consistency, rectal spasm, and pain while wiping. The final instrument included a daily diary with separate items for abdominal and stomach pain and an event log with four items completed after each bowel movement as follows: (1) a record of the bowel movement/event and an assessment of (2) severity of immediacy of need/bowel urgency, (3) incomplete evacuation, and (4) stool consistency (evaluated using the newly developed Astellas Stool Form Scale). Based on rounds of interviews and clinical input, items considered secondary or nonspecific to IBS-D (rectal burning, bubbling in intestines, spasms, and pain while wiping) were excluded.CONCLUSIONS:The IBS-D Symptom Diary and Event Log represent a rigorously developed PRO instrument for the measurement of the IBS-D symptom experience from the perspective of the patient. Its content validity has been supported, and future work should evaluate the instrument’s psychometric properties.

Cultural adaptation: translatability assessment and linguistic validation of the patient-reported outcome instrument for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea

Background and objective Following a 2009 US Food and Drug Administration guidance, a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was developed to support end points in multinational clinical trials assessing irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) symptom severity. Our objective was to assess the translatability of the IBS-D PRO instrument into ten languages, and subsequently perform a cultural adaptation/linguistic validation of the questionnaire into Japanese and US Spanish. Materials and methods Translatability assessments of the US English version of the IBS-D PRO were performed by experienced PRO translators who were native speakers of each target language and currently residing in target-language countries. Languages were Chinese (People’s Republic of China), Dutch (the Netherlands), French (Belgium), German (Germany), Japanese (Japan), Polish (Poland), Portuguese (Brazil), Russian (Russia), Spanish (Mexico), and Spanish (US). The project team assessed the instrument to identify potential linguistic and/or cultural adaptation issues. After the issues identified were resolved, the instrument was translated into Spanish (US) and Japanese through a process of two forward translations, one reconciled translation, and one backward translation. The project team reviewed the translated versions before the instruments were evaluated by cognitive debriefing interviews with samples of five Spanish (US) and five Japanese IBS-D patients. Results Linguistic and cultural adaptation concerns identified during the translatability assessment required minor revisions, mainly the presentation of dates/times and word structure. During the cognitive debriefing interviews, two of five Spanish respondents misunderstood the term “bowel movement” to mean only diarrhea in the Spanish version. Consequently, the term was changed from “movimiento intestinal” to “evacuaciones”. None of the Japanese respondents identified issues with the Japanese version. Conclusion The translatability of the IBS-D PRO instrument into ten target languages was confirmed, with only minor changes made to the translations of the instrument. The translation and linguistic validation into Spanish (US) and Japanese provide evidence that this instrument can be used in multinational trials and clinical settings.

Evaluation and performance of a newly developed patient-reported outcome instrument for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical study population:

Background: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the newly developed seven-item Irritable Bowel Syndrome – Diarrhea predominant (IBS-D) Daily Symptom Diary and four-item Event Log using phase II clinical trial safety and efficacy data in patients with IBS-D. This instrument measures diarrhea (stool frequency and stool consistency), abdominal pain related to IBS-D (stomach pain, abdominal pain, abdominal cramps), immediate need to have a bowel movement (immediate need and accident occurrence), bloating, pressure, gas, and incomplete evacuation. Methods: Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the instrument were evaluated in a clinical trial population [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01494233]. Results: A total of 434 patients were included in the analyses. Significant differences were found among severity groups (p < 0.01) defined by IBS Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) and IBS Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). Severity scores for each Diary and Event Log item score and five-item, four-item, and three-item summary scores were calculated. Between-group differences in changes over time were significant for all summary scores in groups stratified by changes in PGI-S (p < 0.05), two of six Diary items, and three of four Event Log items; a one-grade change in PGI-S was considered a meaningful difference with mean change scores on all Diary items −0.13 to −0.86 [standard deviation (SD) 0.79–1.39]. Similarly, for patients who reported being ‘slightly improved’ (considered a clinically meaningful difference) on the PGI-C, mean change scores on Diary items ranged from −0.45 to −1.55 (SD 0.69–1.39). All estimates of clinically important change for each item and all summary scores were small and should be considered preliminary. These results are aligned with the previous standalone psychometric study regarding reliability and validity tests. Conclusions: These analyses provide evidence of the psychometric properties of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log in a clinical trial population.

Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: creation of an electronic version of a patient-reported outcome instrument by conversion from a pen-and-paper version and evaluation of their equivalence

Background Subjects with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) experience abdominal cramping, bloating, pressure, and pain. Due to an absence of clinical biomarkers for IBS-D severity, evaluation of clinical therapy benefits depends on valid and reliable symptom assessments. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument has been developed, comprising of two questionnaires – the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and IBS-D Symptom Event Log – suitable for clinical trials and real-world settings. This program aimed to support instrument conversion from pen-and-paper to electronic format. Materials and methods Digital technology (Android/iOS) and a traditional mode of administration study in the target population were used to migrate or convert the validated PRO IBS-D pen-and-paper measure to an electronic format. Equivalence interviews, conducted in three waves, each had three parts: 1) conceptual equivalence testing between formats, 2) electronic-version report-history cognitive debriefing, and 3) electronic version usability evaluation. After each inter-view wave, preliminary analyses were conducted and modifications made to the electronic version, before the next wave. Final revisions were based on a full analysis of equivalence interviews. The final analysis evaluated subjects’ ability to read, understand, and provide meaningful responses to the instruments across both formats. Responses were classified according to conceptual equivalence between formats and mobile-format usability assessed with a questionnaire and open-ended probes. Results Equivalence interviews (n=25) demonstrated conceptual equivalence between formats. Mobile-application cognitive debriefing showed some subjects experienced difficulty with font/screen visibility and understanding or reading some report-history charts and summary screens. To address difficulties, minor revisions/modifications were made and landscape orientation and zoom-in/zoom-out features incorporated. Conclusion This study indicates that the two administration modes are conceptually equivalent. Since both formats are conceptually equivalent, both are psychometrically reliable, as established in the pen-and-paper version. Subjects found both mobile applications (Android/iOS) offered many advantages over the paper version, such as real-time assessment of their experience.