Eric Sheldon

Topical lidocaine patch 5% may target a novel underlying pain mechanism in osteoarthritis.

SUMMARY Recent literature and animal research has provided insight to potentially new analgesic targets for managing osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Primary afferent neurons located in affected joints express excessive amounts of abnormally functioning sodium (Na) channels on their surface in response to the inflammatory process. These Na channels may play an integral role in production of pain and hyperalgesia. Hence, the authors set out to conduct a 2-week, open-label, multicenter proof-of-concept study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lidocaine patch 5% monotherapy in adults with OA pain of the knee ( n = 20). Patients with OA of one or both knees who were experiencing inadequate pain relief (defined as an average daily pain intensity of > 4 on a 0 to 10 pain scale) with their current analgesic regimen (i.e. APAP, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, tramadol) were enrolled and had all analgesic medications discontinued. Treatment with the lidocaine patch 5% resulted in significant improvements in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, physical function subscales and composite index (48.4, 41.1, 47.0, and 46.8% improvements respectively, p < 0.01). In addition, significant improvement was noted for pain intensity, pain relief, and pain interference with quality of life as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory ( p < 0.05). The lidocaine patch 5% was generally well tolerated and no patients discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events. Given the open-label design, lack of a control group, and small sample size, the findings from our pilot study need to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials. Topical lidocaine patch 5% may provide clinicians with a novel, non-systemic therapy for OA pain with a unique mechanism of action.

Comparison of the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine patch 5% versus celecoxib for osteoarthritis-related knee pain: Post hoc analysis of a 12 week, prospective, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial in adults

BACKGROUND Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors and nonselective NSAIDs are commonly used to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the lidocaine patch 5% with that of celecoxib 200 mg/d in the treatment of OA-related knee pain; however, the study was terminated prematurely by the sponsor because of tolerability concerns regarding the class of COX-2 selective inhibitors. A post hoc analysis of the available data is presented here. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study included patients >or=18 years of age with unilateral or bilateral moderate to severe OA of the knee. Patients were randomized to receive treatment with either the lidocaine patch 5% or celecoxib 200 mg/d. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index pain subscale. Secondary end points included additional WOMAC subscales and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) measures. Because this trial was prematurely terminated, a post hoc analysis was performed using a random pattern-mixture model of all observed cases of the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS A total of 143 patients were randomized to treatment (lidocaine patch 5%, 69 patients; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.4] years; 65.2% female; 66.7% white; weight, 94.1 [23.3] kg) or celecoxib 200 mg/d (74 patients; age, 58.2 [12.1] years; 63.5% female; 68.9% white; weight, 94.3 [22.5] kg). Baseline pain WOMAC OA subscale scores (lidocaine patch 5%, 12.087; celecoxib 200 mg/d, 12.514) and mean rates of change over time (baseline to week 2, -1.5916 vs -1.6513 per week; weeks 2-6, -0.0168 vs -0.119 per week; weeks 6-12, -0.1818 vs -0.1579 per week) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Improvement in additional WOMAC subscales and in several BPI measures were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 8 patients in each treatment group (11.6% in the lidocaine patch 5% group and 10.8% in the celecoxib 200-mg/d group) and were considered mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSION Statistically significant differences in effectiveness and tolerability were not found between these 2 treatments in these patients with OA knee pain.

A phase 1, placebo-controlled, randomized study of the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a Clostridium difficile vaccine administered with or without aluminum hydroxide in healthy adults.

INTRODUCTION Clostridium difficile is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities. The bacteria can produce 3 toxins, of which the C. difficile toxin A and C. difficile toxin B are the principal virulence factors for C. difficile-associated disease. METHODS A phase 1, first-in-human, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study was performed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of an investigational vaccine candidate consisting of genetically and chemically detoxified, purified toxins A and B. The toxoids, either alone or in combination with aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3), were administered to healthy adults 50-85 years of age at antigen dose levels of 50, 100, or 200 μg in a 3-dose regimen administered at 0, 1, and 6 months. RESULTS Overall, the C. difficile vaccine formulations and doses administered were generally well tolerated. Local reactions and systemic events were predominantly mild to moderate, were more common in the 50-64-year age cohort, and comprised mostly injection site pain, headache, and fatigue. In subjects who received the vaccine formulations, both the toxin A- and toxin B-specific neutralizing antibody geometric mean concentrations increased substantially at 1 month after Dose 2 and after Dose 3 compared to baseline. In the 50-64-year age cohort, geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) in toxin A-specific neutralizing antibodies from baseline at Month 7 ranged from 59.19 to 149.23 in the vaccine groups compared to 2.47 in the control group. For toxin-B specific neutralizing antibodies, the GMFRs from baseline at Month 7 ranged from 116.67 to 2503.75 in the vaccine groups compared to 2.48 in the control group. In the 65-85-year age cohort, GMFRs in toxin A-specific neutralizing antibodies from baseline at Month 7 ranged from 42.73 to 254.77 in the vaccine groups compared to 2.03 in the control group. For toxin-B specific neutralizing antibodies, the GMFRs from baseline at Month 7 ranged from 136.12 to 4922.80 in the vaccine groups compared to 1.58 in the control group. Potent antitoxin neutralizing responses were still evident in immunized subjects in both age groups at Month 12. Although there was no clear dose-level response pattern, the data suggest that both the antitoxin A- and B-specific neutralizing responses were trending higher in the toxoid-only groups compared to the toxoid+Al(OH)3 groups. Furthermore, the magnitude of the immune response was similar in the 2 age cohorts. CONCLUSION The vaccine formulations studied in this phase 1 study were immunogenic and well tolerated. The results presented support further development of the C. difficile vaccine candidate in a larger population of subjects to determine the optimal dose and immunization schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NCT01706367.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 4-antigen Staphylococcus aureus vaccine (SA4Ag): Results from a first-in-human randomised, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 study

BACKGROUND A prophylactic Staphylococcus aureus four-antigen vaccine (SA4Ag) is under development for prevention of invasive S. aureus disease. A preliminary S. aureus three-antigen vaccine (SA3Ag) was reformulated to include a novel manganese transporter protein (MntC or rP305A). This study describes the first-in-human dose-finding, safety, and immunogenicity results for SA4Ag. METHODS In this double-blind, sponsor-unblind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study, 454 healthy adults aged 18-64years were randomised to receive a single dose of one of three formulations of SA4Ag with escalating dose levels of rP305A or placebo. Functional immune responses were measured using opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) killing and fibrinogen-binding inhibition (FBI) assays; antigen-specific immunogenicity was assessed using a four-plex competitive Luminex® immunoassay (cLIA). RESULTS A high proportion of SA4Ag recipients met the pre-defined antibody thresholds for each antigen at Day 29. A substantial and dose-level dependent immune response was observed for rP305A, with up to 18-fold rises in cLIA titres at Day 29. Robust functional responses were demonstrated, with >80-fold and >20-fold rises in OPA assay titres at Day 29 using S. aureus strains expressing capsular polysaccharide serotypes 5 and 8, respectively. Durable antibody responses were observed through month 12, gradually waning from peak levels achieved by days 11-15. SA4Ag was well tolerated, and no vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS Single-dose vaccination of SA4Ag in healthy adults aged 18-64years safely induced rapid and robust functional immune responses that were durable through month 12, supporting further development of this vaccine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01364571.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a single dose 4-antigen or 3-antigen Staphylococcus aureus vaccine in healthy older adults: Results of a randomised trial

BACKGROUND The decline in immune function with age is a challenge to vaccine development. Following an initial study in adults aged 18-64years, this study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) 4-antigen (SA4Ag) and 3-antigen (SA3Ag) vaccine in older adults. SA3Ag included capsular polysaccharide serotypes 5 and 8 (CP5 and CP8) conjugated to the nontoxic mutant form of diphtheria toxin (CRM197) and a recombinant version of clumping factor A (ClfA). SA4Ag included these antigens, with the addition of a recombinant manganese transporter C (rP305A or MntC). Both vaccines were unadjuvanted. METHODS In this double-blind, sponsor-unblinded, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study, 284 healthy adults (aged 65-85years) were randomised to receive a single dose of one of three formulations of SA4Ag with escalating dose levels of rP305A, SA3Ag, or placebo. Functional immune responses were measured using opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) killing and fibrinogen-binding inhibition (FBI) assays; immunogenicity was also assessed using a competitive Luminex® immunoassay (cLIA). T-cell responses were measured in a small subgroup of subjects using intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays. RESULTS The results demonstrated rapid and robust functional immune responses to all antigens in healthy older adults. A high proportion of active vaccine recipients met the pre-defined antibody thresholds for each antigen at Day 29. SA4Ag elicited a dose-level response to rP305A with up to a 13-fold rise in cLIA titres at Day 29. Opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) assays showed >50- and >20-fold rises in functional titres using S. aureus strains expressing CP5 and CP8, respectively, at Day 29. T-cell cytokine responses were not substantially above background levels. There were no safety concerns in this study population and no increases in adverse events with higher rP305A dose levels. CONCLUSIONS Single-dose vaccination of SA4Ag and SA3Ag in healthy adults aged 65-85years safely induced rapid and robust functional immune responses, supporting further development of SA4Ag for the prevention of S. aureus disease in adults up to age 85years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01643941.

Immunogenicity and safety of an AS03-adjuvanted H7N1 vaccine in healthy adults: A phase I/II, observer-blind, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND H7 influenza strains have pandemic potential. AS03-adjuvanted H7N1 A/mallard/Netherlands/12/2000 split-virion vaccine formulations were evaluated as model H7-subtype vaccine and tested after H7N9 emerged in China, and caused severe human disease with high mortality. METHODS In this phase I/II, observer-blind, randomized trial in US and Canada, 420 healthy adults (21-64years) were randomized to receive 1 of 4 H7N1 vaccine formulations (3.75 or 7.5μg hemagglutinin adjuvanted with either AS03A or AS03B), 15μg unadjuvanted H7N1 hemagglutinin, or saline placebo, given as 2-dose series. Immunogenicity was assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays, at day 42 (21days post-dose 2), month 6, and month 12 (HI only) for the per-protocol cohorts (398, 379 and 368 participants, respectively). Safety is reported up to month 12. RESULTS Beneficial AS03 adjuvant effect was demonstrated. Committee for Medical Products for Human Use, and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) criteria were met for all adjuvanted formulations at day 42 (H7N1 HI assay); seroprotection (SPR) and seroconversion rates (SCR) were 88.5-94.8%, mean geometric increase (MGI) 19.2-34.9, and geometric mean titers (GMT) 98.3-180.7. Unadjuvanted H7N1 vaccine did not meet CBER criteria. In adjuvanted groups, antibody titers decreased over time; month 12 SPRs and GMTs were low (2.0-18.8% and 8.1-12.2). MN antibodies showed similar kinetics, with titers persisting at higher range than HI at month 6. All adjuvanted groups showed cross-reactivity against H7N9, with HI responses similar to H7N1. The most frequent solicited symptom in adjuvanted groups was injection site pain (71.2-86.7%); grade 3 solicited symptoms were infrequent. Nine participants reported 17 serious adverse events; none were considered causally related to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvanted H7N1 vaccine formulations had an acceptable safety profile and induced an antibody response after 2 doses with cross-reactivity to H7N9. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01934127.

Evaluation of a primary course of H9N2 vaccine with or without AS03 adjuvant in adults: A phase I/II randomized trial

BACKGROUND Avian influenza A H9N2 strains have pandemic potential. METHODS In this randomized, observer-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01659086), 420 healthy adults, 18-64years of age, received 1 of 10 H9N2 inactivated split-virus vaccination regimens (30 participants per group), or saline placebo (120 participants). H9N2 groups received 2 doses (days 0, 21) of 15µg hemagglutinin (HA) without adjuvant, or 1.9µgHA+AS03A, 1.9µgHA+AS03B, 3.75µgHA+AS03A, or 3.75µgHA+AS03B; followed by the same H9N2 formulation or placebo (day 182). AS03 is an adjuvant system containing α-tocopherol (AS03A: 11.86mg; AS03B: 5.93mg) and squalene in an oil-in-water emulsion. Immunogenicity (hemagglutination inhibition [HI] and microneutralization assays) and safety were assessed up to day 546. RESULTS All adjuvanted formulations exceeded regulatory immunogenicity criteria at days 21 and 42 (HI assay), with seroprotection and seroconversion rates of ≥94.9% and ≥89.8% at day 21, and 100% and ≥98.1% at day 42. Immunogenicity criteria were also met for unadjuvanted vaccine, with lower geometric mean titers. In groups administered a third vaccine dose (day 182), an anamnestic immune response was elicited with robust increases in HI and microneutralization titers. Injection site pain was reported more frequently with adjuvanted vaccines. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS All H9N2 vaccine formulations were immunogenic with a clinically acceptable safety profile; adjuvanted formulations were 4-8 times dose-sparing (3.75-1.9vs 15µgHA). TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01659086.

Poster 96: Impact of treatment with a 5% lidocaine patch on pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis1

Abstract Objective: To assess the effect of a 5% lidocaine patch (Lidoderm), a targeted peripheral analgesic, on pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Design: Open-label, nonrandomized, prospective, 2-week, multicenter pilot study. Setting: Clinic. Participants: Men and women ≥18 years with OA of 1 or both knees; average daily pain intensity >4/10 on a numeric pain rating scale. Interventions: Patients on stable dose of analgesic at baseline were assigned a lidocaine patch as an add-on therapy (group 1; n=137); patients on an as-needed only analgesic received a lidocaine patch as monotherapy (group 2; n=30) and were not permitted to receive other analgesics for the duration of the study. Treatment consisted of an application every 24 hours of ≤4 lidocaine patches directly to area of maximal osteoarthritic pain. Main Outcome Measures: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, and Patient and Investigator Global Assessment of Pain Relief. Safety was determined by adverse events, physical examinations, dermal assessment, and skin sensory testing. Results: For both groups, the lidocaine patch resulted in significant reductions or improvements in the following: BPI pain intensity and pain relief (worst pain, least pain, average pain, pain right now, pain relief; P