Efficacy and Safety of Transdermal Abaloparatide in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: A Randomized Study.

Anabolic therapies, recommended for patients at very high fracture risk, are administered subcutaneously (SC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the abaloparatide microstructured transdermal system (abaloparatide-sMTS) as an alternative to the SC formulation. This phase 3, noninferiority study (NCT04064411) randomly assigned postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N = 511) 1:1 to open-label abaloparatide administered daily via abaloparatide-sMTS or SC injection for 12 months. The primary comparison between treatment groups was the percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months, with a noninferiority margin of 2.0%. Secondary endpoints included percentage change in total hip and femoral neck BMD, bone turnover markers, dermatologic safety, and new clinical fracture incidence. At 12 months, percentage increase from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was 7.14% (SE: 0.46%) for abaloparatide-sMTS and 10.86% (SE: 0.48%) for abaloparatide-SC (treatment difference: -3.72% [95% confidence interval: -5.01%, -2.43%]). Percentage change in total hip BMD was 1.97% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 3.70% for abaloparatide-SC. Median changes from baseline at 12 months in serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) were 52.6% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 74.5% for abaloparatide-SC. Administration site reactions were the most frequently reported adverse events (abaloparatide-sMTS, 94.4%; abaloparatide-SC, 70.5%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups. Mild or moderate skin reactions occurred with abaloparatide-sMTS with no identifiable risk factors for sensitization reactions. Few new clinical fractures occurred in either group. Noninferiority of abaloparatide-sMTS to abaloparatide-SC for percentage change in spine BMD at 12 months was not demonstrated; however, clinically meaningful increases from baseline in lumbar spine and total hip BMD were observed in both treatment groups. © 2023 Radius Health, Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

A First-in-Human Phase 1 Study of a Novel Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM), RAD140, in ER+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: This first-in-human, phase 1 study aimed to characterize the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, and antitumor activity of RAD140, an oral selective androgen receptor (AR) modulator (SARM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This dose-escalation study with a 3 + 3 design and PK expansion cohort enrolled postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Serum sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were used as surrogate markers of AR engagement. RESULTS: Twenty-two (21 AR+) heavily pretreated mBC patients were enrolled. Dose levels included 50 mg (n = 6), 100 mg (n = 13), and 150 mg (n = 3) once daily (QD). Most frequent (> 10%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were elevated AST (59.1%), ALT (45.5%), and total blood bilirubin (27.3%), and vomiting, dehydration, and decreased appetite and weight (27.3% each). Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 16 (72.7%) patients and included elevations in AST/ALT and hypophosphatemia (22.7% each). Treatment-related TEAEs occurred in 17 per 22 patients (77.3%); 7 (31.8%) were Grade 3; none were Grade 4. The half-life (t1/2) of 44.7 hours supported QD dosing. At the MTD of 100 mg/day, 1 patient with an ESR1 mutation at baseline had a partial response. Overall, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks was 18.2%, and median progression-free survival was 2.3 months. SHBG decreased in 18 per 18 patients, and PSA increased in 16 per 20 patients. Paired baseline and on-treatment tumor biopsies demonstrated AR engagement. CONCLUSION: RAD140 is a novel oral AR-targeted agent for the treatment of AR+/ER+/HER2- mBC with an acceptable safety profile and preliminary evidence of target engagement and antitumor activity.

Phase 1b Evaluation of Abaloparatide Solid Microstructured Transdermal System (Abaloparatide-sMTS) in Postmenopausal Women with Low Bone Mineral Density.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Abaloparatide, an anabolic osteoporosis treatment administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection, increases bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System [abaloparatide-sMTS (Kindeva, St Paul, MN, USA)], which delivers abaloparatide intradermally, is in development to provide an alternative method for abaloparatide delivery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of subjects to self-administer abaloparatide-sMTS, based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic markers. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, Phase 1b study, 22 healthy postmenopausal women aged 50-85 years with low BMD were trained to self-administer abaloparatide-sMTS 300 µg once daily to the thigh for 5 min for 29 days. The primary endpoint was systemic exposure to abaloparatide. Secondary endpoints included percent change from baseline in serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP), patient experience, and safety. RESULTS: All 22 subjects completed the study. At baseline, mean age was 65.2 years, mean total hip T-score was - 1.32, and mean lumbar spine T-score was - 1.98. On Day 1, the median time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax) for abaloparatide-sMTS was 0.33 h and geometric mean (CV %) maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t) were 447 (38.0) pg/mL and 678 (45.3) pg·h/mL, respectively; the pharmacokinetic profile was similar on Days 15 and 29. Median percentage change in s-PINP was 45.4% and 64.4% at Days 15 and 29, respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) were application site erythema, pain, and swelling, which were mostly of mild or moderate severity. No AEs led to study drug withdrawal and no serious AEs were reported. The success rate for self-administration at first application was 99.7%, and subject acceptability was high (~ 4.5 on a 5-point Likert Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects successfully self-administered abaloparatide-sMTS, which provided a consistent pharmacokinetic profile over 29 days and produced s-PINP increases from baseline similar to that observed in the pivotal trial with abaloparatide-SC. Observed patient experience along with the clinical data support continued clinical development of abaloparatide-sMTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04366726, Date of registration 04/29/2020, retrospectively registered.

Osteoporosis is a serious health condition that causes more than 2 million fractures in the USA annually. Treatment options for osteoporosis include drugs that prevent bone resorption and anabolic agents that build new bone. Bone anabolic agents, such as abaloparatide, have been shown to increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Currently, all bone anabolic agents are delivered by subcutaneous injection. However, some patients do not like injectable treatments, which can negatively impact patients' adherence to prescribed medication. In this study, we describe a novel mode of administration, the abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System (abaloparatide-sMTS), which is applied to the thigh for 5 min and delivers abaloparatide intradermally. The study showed that this new method delivered abaloparatide into the blood as effectively as subcutaneous injections and demonstrated signs of activity in the body. Study participants were satisfied with abaloparatide-sMTS and found it easy to use. The most common side effects were skin related, including redness, pain, and swelling, which resolved shortly after dosing.

Early Effects of Abaloparatide on Bone Formation and Resorption Indices in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis.

Anabolic osteoporosis drugs improve bone mineral density by increasing bone formation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early effects of abaloparatide on indices of bone formation and to assess the effect of abaloparatide on modeling-based formation (MBF), remodeling-based formation (RBF), and overflow MBF (oMBF) in transiliac bone biopsies. In this open-label, single-arm study, 23 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were treated with 80 µg abaloparatide daily. Subjects received double fluorochrome labels before treatment and before biopsy collection at 3 months. Change in dynamic histomorphometry indices in four bone envelopes were assessed. Median mineralizing surface per unit of bone surface (MS/BS) increased to 24.7%, 48.7%, 21.4%, and 16.3% of total surface after 3 months of abaloparatide treatment, representing 5.5-, 5.2-, 2.8-, and 12.9-fold changes, on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal surfaces (p < .001 versus baseline for all). Mineral apposition rate (MAR) was significantly increased only on intracortical surfaces. Bone formation rate (BFR/BS) was significantly increased on all four bone envelopes. Significant increases versus baseline were observed in MBF on cancellous, endocortical, and periosteal surfaces, for oMBF on cancellous and endocortical surfaces, and for RBF on cancellous, endocortical, and intracortical surfaces. Overall, modeling-based formation (MBF + oMBF) accounted for 37% and 23% of the increase in bone-forming surface on the endocortical and cancellous surfaces, respectively. Changes from baseline in serum biomarkers of bone turnover at either month 1 or month 3 were generally good surrogates for changes in histomorphometric endpoints. In conclusion, treatment with abaloparatide for 3 months stimulated bone formation on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal envelopes in transiliac bone biopsies obtained from postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. These increases reflected stimulation of both remodeling- and modeling-based bone formation, further elucidating the mechanisms by which abaloparatide improves bone mass and lowers fracture risk. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

Safety and efficacy of WC2031 versus vibramycin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have raised concern about efficacy of azithromycin for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Research investigating new antibiotic regimens for chlamydia has been sparse, especially regimens that may reduce adherence difficulties with the recommended twice-daily doxycycline regimen. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicenter trial with the objective of evaluating the safety and efficacy of WC2031 (doxycycline hyclate delayed-release 200-mg tablet) orally once daily for 7 days versus Vibramycin (doxycycline hyclate capsule) 100 mg orally twice daily for 7 days for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital chlamydia. Men and nonpregnant women aged 19-45 years with a urogenital chlamydial diagnosis or a sexual partner with chlamydia were eligible. The primary outcome was microbial cure by nucleic acid amplification testing at day 28. Noninferiority of WC2031 was inferred if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in cure rates was >-10%. RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were randomized. The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with evaluable efficacy consisted of 323 subjects. Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between the mITT groups. Microbial cure rates for WC2031 were 95.5% (95% CI, 92.3-98.8) versus 95.2% (95% CI, 92.0-98.4) for Vibramycin (95% CI for the difference in cure rates, -4.3% to 4.9%). Types of adverse events were comparable. Nausea and vomiting occurred less frequently with WC2031 than with Vibramycin (13% vs 21% and 8% vs 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: WC2031 was noninferior to Vibramycin for uncomplicated urogenital chlamydia treatment, better tolerated, and demonstrated comparable safety. WC2031 could improve treatment adherence over twice-daily Vibramycin. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01113931.