Efficacy and safety of crisaborole ointment, 2%, in participants aged ≥45 years with stasis dermatitis: Results from a fully decentralized, randomized, proof-of-concept phase 2a study.

BACKGROUND: Crisaborole ointment, 2%, is a nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of crisaborole in stasis dermatitis (SD). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, decentralized phase 2a study (NCT04091087), 65 participants aged ≥45 years with SD without active ulceration received crisaborole or vehicle (1:1) twice-daily for 6 weeks. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline in total sign score at week 6 based on in-person assessment. RESULTS: Crisaborole-treated participants had significantly reduced total sign score from baseline versus vehicle based on in-person (nondermatologist) assessment (-32.4% vs -18.1%, P = .0299) and central reader (dermatologists) assessment of photographs (-52.5% vs -10.3%, P = .0004). Efficacy according to success and improvement per Investigator's Global Assessment score and lesional percentage body surface area reached statistical significance based on central reader but not in-person assessments. Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders were common all-causality treatment-emergent adverse events with crisaborole. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and short treatment duration were key limitations. In-person assessment was not conducted by dermatologists. CONCLUSION: Crisaborole improved signs and symptoms of SD and was well tolerated. Central reader assessment represents a promising approach for siteless clinical research.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis: 2 randomized controlled trials versus naproxen.

OBJECTIVE: Two studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen for treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Randomized controlled studies [NCT00830063 (Study 1015, n=828) and NCT00863304 (Study 1018, n=840)] of subjects with hip or knee OA compared intravenous tanezumab (5 mg or 10 mg) to placebo and naproxen (500 mg twice daily). Coprimary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function (0-10 numerical rating scale), and patient's global assessment of OA at Week 16. RESULTS: In both studies, tanezumab reduced pain versus placebo [least squares mean differences, 95% CI, tanezumab 5 mg: -1.21 (-1.72, -0.70); -1.13 (-1.65, -0.62); tanezumab 10 mg: -0.91 (-1.42, -0.40); -0.80 (-1.32, -0.29)], and improved function and global scores. Tanezumab 5 mg produced greater pain reduction [-0.76 (-1.28, -0.25); -0.69 (-1.21, -0.17)], and favorable functional and global outcomes versus naproxen. Pain reductions with tanezumab 10 mg versus naproxen did not reach significance, unlike functional (both studies) and global (1 study) outcomes; thus, tanezumab 10 mg was not superior to naproxen, and predefined statistical testing procedures were not met, allowing for conclusion of superiority of tanezumab 5 mg over naproxen despite replicated favorable coprimary outcomes. Tanezumab was associated with greater incidence of peripheral sensory adverse events (paresthesia, hyperesthesia, hypoesthesia, burning sensation), pain in extremity, peripheral edema, and arthralgia. Overall frequency and discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar to placebo and naproxen. CONCLUSION: Tanezumab provides efficacious treatment of knee or hip OA and may have therapeutic utility in patients with OA who experience inadequate analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

Whole-patient measure of safety: using administrative data to assess the probability of highly undesirable events during hospitalization.

Hospitals often have limited ability to obtain primary clinical data from electronic health records to use in assessing quality and safety. We outline a new model that uses administrative data to gauge the safety of care at the hospital level. The model is based on a set of highly undesirable events (HUEs) defined using administrative data and can be customized to address the priorities and needs of different users. Patients with HUEs were identified using discharge abstracts from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010. Diagnoses were classified as HUEs based on the associated present-on-admission status. The 2-year study population comprised more than 6.5 million discharges from 161 hospitals. The proportion of hospitalizations including at least one HUE during the 24-month study period varied greatly among hospitals, with a mean of 7.74% (SD 2.3%) and a range of 13.32% (max, 15.31%; min, 1.99%). The whole-patient measure of safety provides a global measure to use in assessing hospitals with the patient's entire care experience in mind. As administrative and clinical datasets become more consistent, it becomes possible to use administrative data to compare the rates of HUEs across organizations and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on transient ischemia: the Quinapril Anti-Ischemia and Symptoms of Angina Reduction (QUASAR) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACE-I) (i.e., quinapril) prevents transient ischemia (exertional and spontaneous) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: It is known that ACE-I reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and other CAD-related outcomes in high-risk patients. Numerous studies have confirmed that ACE-I improves coronary flow and endothelial function. Whether ACE-I also decreases transient ischemia is unclear, because no studies have been adequately designed or sufficiently powered to evaluate this issue. METHODS: Using a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicenter design, we enrolled 336 CAD patients with stable angina. None had uncontrolled hypertension, left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, or recent MI, and all developed electrocardiographic (ECG) evidence of ischemia during exercise. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 40 mg/day quinapril (n = 177) or placebo (n = 159) for 8 weeks. Patients then entered an additional eight-week treatment phase to examine the full dose range. Those assigned to 40 mg quinapril continued that dose and those assigned to placebo were titrated to 80 mg/day. Treadmill testing, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and ambulatory ECG monitoring were used to assess responses at baseline and at 8 and 16 weeks. RESULTS: The groups did not differ significantly at entry or in terms of indexes assessing myocardial ischemia at 8 or 16 weeks of treatment. In this low-risk population, ACE-I was not associated with serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest short-term ACE-I in CAD patients without hypertension, LV dysfunction, or acute MI is not associated with significant effects on transient ischemia.