Efruxifermin in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a trial.

Preclinical and clinical data suggest that fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) is anti-fibrotic, improves metabolic status and has potential to treat non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We assessed the safety and efficacy of efruxifermin, a long-acting Fc-FGF21 fusion protein, for the treatment of NASH. BALANCED was a randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with NASH conducted at 27 centers in the United States (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03976401 ). Eighty patients, stratified by hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and fibrosis stage, were randomized using a centrally administered minimization algorithm 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo (n = 21) or efruxifermin 28 mg (n = 19), efruxifermin 50 mg (n = 20) or efruxifermin 70 mg (n = 20) via weekly subcutaneous injection for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint-absolute change from baseline in HFF measured as magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction at week 12-was met. For the full analysis set, the least squares mean absolute changes (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) from baseline in HFF were -12.3% (-infinity (-inf), -10.3), -13.4% (-inf, -11.4) and -14.1% (-inf, -12.1) in the 28-, 50- and 70-mg groups, respectively, versus 0.3% (-inf, 1.6) in the placebo group, with statistically significant differences between efruxifermin groups and placebo (P < 0.0001 each). Overall, 70 of 79 patients who received the study drug (89%) experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with the majority grade 1-2 (64 (81%)), five (6%) grade 3 and one grade 4. The most commonly reported drug-related TEAEs were grade 1-2 gastrointestinal (36 (46%)). Treatment with efruxifermin significantly reduced HFF in patients with F1-F3 stage NASH, with an acceptable safety profile.

Deprivation and exposure to public activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Differential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch-a large community cohort study based in England and Wales-reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn-winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: Participants (n=20 120-25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants' residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period. RESULTS: Relative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73-8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13-5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09-1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09-1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15-1.19) across multiple survey periods. CONCLUSION: Differential exposure to essential public activities-such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops-is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.