Richard Krause

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of 0.5 mg and 1 mg Alosetron in Women With Severe Diarrhea-predominant IBS

OBJECTIVE:Alosetron is indicated for women with chronic, severe diarrhea-predominant IBS (d-IBS) who have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Constipation is the most common adverse event with alosetron treatment. Multiple dosing regimens were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (S3B30040) to determine efficacy, tolerability, and evaluate constipation rate.METHODS:705 women with severe d-IBS were randomized to placebo, alosetron 0.5 mg once daily, 1 mg once daily, or 1 mg twice daily for 12 wk. The primary end point was the proportion of week 12 responders (patients with moderate or substantial improvement in IBS symptoms) on the 7-point Likert Global Improvement Scale (GIS). Secondary end points were average rate of adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and bowel symptom improvements.RESULTS:The proportion of GIS responders at week 12 (primary time point) was significantly greater in all alosetron groups compared with placebo (54/176 [30.7%], 90/177 [50.8%], 84/175 [48%], and 76/177 [42.9%] for placebo, 0.5, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily alosetron groups, respectively; P ≤ 0.02). Results were similar for the average adequate relief rate (treatment effects ≥12%, P ≤ 0.038). Bowel symptoms were improved in all alosetron groups. Constipation was the most common adverse event (9%, 16%, and 19% patients in the 0.5 mg, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily groups, respectively). One event of intestinal obstruction and one of ischemic colitis occurred in the 0.5 mg group, and one event of fecal impaction occurred in the 1 mg twice-daily group. All were self-limited and resolved without sequelae.CONCLUSION:Alosetron 0.5 mg and 1 mg once daily as well as 1 mg twice daily are effective in providing global improvement in IBS symptoms, adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and improvement in bowel symptoms in women with severe d-IBS. Lower dosing regimens resulted in a decreased constipation rate.

Seven‐Day Triple Therapy with Lansoprazole, Clarithromycin, and Metronidazole for the Cure of Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Short Report

BackgroundTo refine our understanding of anti‐Helicobacter pylori treatment regimens further, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of lansoprazole given in combination with clarithromycin and metronidazole for 7 days in an open‐label, multicenter study.

Peliosis Hepatic in a Patient With Marasmus

Peliosis hepatitis is a rare disorder previously seen in tuberculosis and malignant disorders and now seen with anabolic steroid use or after renal transplantation. We report the first case of peliosis hepatis in a patient with marasmus and no previously reported predisposing condition. Of interest, the peliosis hepatis resolved rapidly (over 2-3 wk) as determined by computed tomography scan and the patient presented with a cholestatic enzyme pattern that resolved with development of the lesion.

Epitope-specific immunotherapy targeting CD4-positive T cells in coeliac disease: two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 studies

BACKGROUND A gluten-free diet is the only means to manage coeliac disease, a permanent immune intolerance to gluten. We developed a therapeutic vaccine, Nexvax2, designed to treat coeliac disease. Nexvax2 is an adjuvant-free mix of three peptides that include immunodominant epitopes for gluten-specific CD4-positive T cells. The vaccine is intended to engage and render gluten-specific CD4-positive T cells unresponsive to further antigenic stimulation. We assessed the safety and pharmacodynamics of the vaccine in patients with coeliac disease on a gluten-free diet. METHODS We did two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 studies at 12 community sites in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, in HLA-DQ2·5-positive patients aged 18-70 years who had coeliac disease and were on a gluten-free diet. In the screening period for ascending dose cohorts, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation with a simple block method to a double-blind crossover, placebo-controlled oral gluten challenge. Participants with a negative interferon γ release assay to Nexvax2 peptides after the screening oral gluten challenge were discontinued before dosing. For the biopsy cohorts, the screening period included an endoscopy, and participants with duodenal histology who had a Marsh score of greater than 1 were discontinued before dosing. Participants were subsequently randomly assigned to either Nexvax2 or placebo in ascending dose cohorts (2:1) and in biopsy cohorts (1:1) by central randomisation with a simple block method. In the three-dose study, participants received either Nexvax2 60 μg, 90 μg, or 150 μg weekly, or placebo over 15 days; in a fourth biopsy cohort, patients received either Nexvax2 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or placebo. In the 16-dose study, participants received Nexvax2 150 μg or 300 μg or placebo twice weekly over 53 days; in a third biopsy cohort, patients also received either Nexvax2 at the MTD or placebo. In the 4-week post-treatment period, ascending dose cohorts underwent a further double-blind crossover, placebo-controlled oral gluten challenge, which had a fixed sequence, and biopsy cohorts had a gastroscopy with duodenal biopsies and quantitative histology within 2 weeks without oral gluten challenge. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to the treatment assignment, except for the study pharmacist. The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of adverse events in the treatment period in an intention-to-treat analysis. Both trials were completed and closed before data analysis. Trials were registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, numbers ACTRN12612000355875 and ACTRN12613001331729. FINDINGS Participants were enrolled from Nov 28, 2012, to Aug 14, 2014, in the three-dose study, and from Aug 3, 2012, to Sept 10, 2013, in the 16-dose study. Overall, 62 (57%) of 108 participants were randomly assigned after oral gluten challenge and 20 (71%) of 28 participants were randomly assigned after endoscopy. In the three-dose study, nine participants were randomly allocated to Nexvax2 60 μg and three to placebo (first cohort), nine were allocated to Nexvax2 90 μg and four to placebo (second cohort), eight were allocated to Nexvax2 150 μg and four to placebo (third cohort), and three were allocated to Nexvax2 150 μg and three to placebo (biopsy cohort). In the 16-dose study, eight participants were randomly allocated to Nexvax2 150 μg and four to placebo (first cohort), ten were allocated to Nexvax2 300 μg and three to placebo (second cohort), and seven were allocated to Nexvax2 150 μg and seven to placebo (biopsy cohort). The MTD for Nexvax2 was 150 μg because of transient, acute gastrointestinal adverse events with onset 2-5 h after initial doses of the vaccine, similar to those caused by gluten ingestion. In the ascending dose cohorts in the three-dose study, six (55%) of 11 placebo recipients, five (56%) of nine who received Nexvax2 60 μg, seven (78%) of nine who received Nexvax2 90 μg, and five (63%) of eight who received Nexvax2 150 μg had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, as did all three (100%) placebo recipients and one (33%) of three Nexvax2 150 μg recipients in the biopsy cohort. In the ascending dose cohorts of the 16-dose study, five (71%) of seven placebo-treated participants, six (75%) of eight who received Nexvax2 150 μg, and all ten (100%) who received Nexvax2 300 μg had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, as did six (86%) of seven placebo recipients and five (71%) of seven Nexvax2 150 μg recipients in the biopsy cohort. Vomiting, nausea, and headache were the only treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of participants in either study. Among participants given the MTD, eight gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in four (50%) of eight participants in the third cohort and none (0%) of three participants in the biopsy cohort in the three-dose study, and five events occurred in five (63%) of eight participants in the first cohort and three events in two (29%) of seven participants in the biopsy cohort of the 16-dose study. Median villous height to crypt depth ratio in distal duodenal biopsies was not significantly different between those who received the vaccine at the MTD on either schedule and those who received placebo. Of the participants who completed the post-treatment oral gluten challenge per protocol, interferon γ release assay to Nexvax2 peptides was negative (responders to treatment) in two (22%) of nine placebo-treated participants in the three-dose study versus two (33%) of six who received Nexvax2 60 μg, five (63%) of eight who received Nexvax2 90 μg, and six (100%) of six who received Nexvax2 150 μg (p=0·007); in the 16-dose study, none (0%) of five placebo-treated participants had a negative assay versus six (75%) of eight who received Nexvax2 150 μg (p=0·021). INTERPRETATION The MTD of Nexvax2 was 150 μg for twice weekly intradermal administration over 8 weeks, which modified immune responsiveness to Nexvax2 peptides without deterioration in duodenal histology. The gastrointestinal symptoms that followed the first intradermal administration of the vaccine resembled those associated with oral gluten challenge. These findings support continued clinical development of this potential therapeutic vaccine for coeliac disease. FUNDING ImmusanT.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of plecanatide in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: results of two phase 3 randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: Two identical, phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of plecanatide in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS‐C). METHODS: Adults meeting Rome III criteria for IBS‐C were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo or plecanatide (3 or 6 mg) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of overall responders (patients reporting ≥30% reduction from baseline in worst abdominal pain plus an increase of ≥1 complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM)/week from baseline in the same week for ≥6 of 12 treatment weeks). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 2189 individuals were randomized across the two studies and 1879 completed the studies. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups and between studies. The percentage of overall responders in Study 1 was 30.2% and 29.5% for plecanatide 3 and 6 mg, respectively, vs. 17.8% placebo (P < 0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and in Study 2 was 21.5% (P = 0.009) and 24.0% (P < 0.001) for plecanatide 3 and 6 mg, respectively, compared to 14.2% for placebo. The percentage of sustained efficacy responders (overall responders plus weekly responders for ≥2 of last 4 weeks of the 12‐week treatment period) was significantly greater for both doses of plecanatide vs. placebo across both studies. All secondary end points (stool frequency/consistency, straining, abdominal symptoms) showed statistically significant improvements compared with placebo. The most common AE was diarrhea (3 mg, 4.3%; 6 mg, 4.0%; placebo, 1.0%). Discontinuation due to diarrhea was infrequent (3 mg, 1.2%; 6 mg, 1.4%; placebo, 0). CONCLUSIONS: Plecanatide significantly improved both abdominal pain and constipation symptoms of IBS‐C with minimal associated side effects and high levels of tolerability.

Efficacy and Safety of Plecanatide in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation: Results from 2 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Synergy will also present findings from the new BURDEN-CIC (Better Understanding and Recognition of the Disconnects, Experiences, and Needs of Patients with Chronic Idiopathic Constipation) study, which evaluated the experiences and perceptions of people living with CIC and healthcare providers who regularly treat this condition. In addition, the company will present four posters, which include two that have been recognized as Posters of Distinction.

Rabeprazole (RAB) provides greater day 1 heartburn (HB) relief than omeprazole (OME) in patients with acute erosive esophagitis (EE) and moderate to severe symptoms

Rabeprazole (RAB) provides greater day 1 heartburn (HB) relief than omeprazole (OME) in patients with acute erosive esophagitis (EE) and moderate to severe symptoms