Safety and Efficacy of Dexpramipexole in Eosinophilic Asthma (EXHALE): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for new and effective oral asthma therapies. Dexpramipexole, an oral eosinophil-lowering drug, has not previously been studied in asthma. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexpramipexole in lowering blood and airway eosinophilia in subjects with eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial in adults with inadequately controlled moderate to severe asthma and blood absolute eosinophil count (AEC) greater than or equal to 300/µL. Subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to dexpramipexole 37.5, 75, or 150 mg BID (twice-daily) or placebo. The primary end point was the relative change in AEC from baseline to week 12. Prebronchodilator FEV1 week-12 change from baseline was a key secondary end point. Nasal eosinophil peroxidase was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: A total of 103 subjects were randomly assigned to dexpramipexole 37.5 mg BID (N = 22), 75 mg BID (N = 26), 150 mg BID (N = 28), or placebo (N = 27). Dexpramipexole significantly reduced placebo-corrected AEC week-12 ratio to baseline, in both the 150-mg BID (ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12-0.43; P < .0001) and the 75-mg BID (ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65; P = .0014) dose groups, corresponding to 77% and 66% reductions, respectively. Dexpramipexole reduced the exploratory end point of nasal eosinophil peroxidase week-12 ratio to baseline in the 150-mg BID (median, 0.11; P = .020) and the 75-mg BID (median, 0.17; P = .021) groups. Placebo-corrected FEV1 increases were observed starting at week 4 (nonsignificant). Dexpramipexole displayed a favorable safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Dexpramipexole demonstrated effective eosinophil lowering and was well tolerated. Additional larger clinical trials are needed to understand the clinical efficacy of dexpramipexole in asthma.

Dexpramipexole as an oral steroid-sparing agent in hypereosinophilic syndromes.

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HESs) are a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophil-related end organ damage. Whereas most patients respond to glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, high doses are often necessary, and side effects are common. Dexpramipexole (KNS-760704), an orally bioavailable synthetic aminobenzothiazole, showed an excellent safety profile and was coincidentally noted to significantly decrease absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) in a phase 3 trial for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate dexpramipexole (150 mg orally twice daily) as a GC-sparing agent in HESs. Dual primary end points were (1) the proportion of subjects with ≥50% decrease in the minimum effective GC dose (MED) to maintain AEC <1000/µL and control clinical symptoms, and (2) the MED after 12 weeks of dexpramipexole (MEDD) as a percentage of the MED at week 0. Out of 10 subjects, 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%, 74%) achieved a ≥50% reduction in MED, and the MEDD/MED ratio was significantly <100% (median, 66%; 95% CI, 6%, 98%; P = .03). All adverse events were self-limited, and none led to drug discontinuation. Affected tissue biopsy samples in 2 subjects showed normalization of pathology and depletion of eosinophils on dexpramipexole. Bone marrow biopsy samples after 12 weeks of dexpramipexole showed selective absence of mature eosinophils in responders. Dexpramipexole appears promising as a GC-sparing agent without apparent toxicity in a subset of subjects with GC-responsive HESs. Although the exact mechanism of action is unknown, preliminary data suggest that dexpramipexole may affect eosinophil maturation in the bone marrow. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02101138.

The targeted eosinophil-lowering effects of dexpramipexole in clinical studies.

Dexpramipexole, an orally bioavailable small molecule previously under clinical development in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, was observed during routine safety hematology monitoring to demonstrate pronounced, dose- and time-dependent eosinophil-lowering effects, with minor reductions on other leukocyte counts. Analysis of hematology lab values across two double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials at total daily doses ranging from 50mg to 300mg demonstrated that dexpramipexole consistently and markedly lowered peripheral blood eosinophils. This effect developed after 1month on treatment, required 3-4months to reach its maximum, remained constant throughout treatment, and partially recovered to baseline levels upon drug withdrawal. All doses tested were well tolerated. The overall adverse event rate was similar for dexpramipexole and placebo, and notably with no increase in infection-related adverse events associated with eosinophil-lowering effects. Given the reliance on and insufficiency of off-label chronic corticosteroid therapy for hypereosinophilic syndromes and other eosinophilic-associated diseases (EADs), a need exists for less toxic, more effective, targeted therapeutic alternatives. Further clinical studies are underway to assess the eosinophil-lowering effect of dexpramipexole in the peripheral blood and target tissues of EAD patients and whether such reductions, if observed, produce clinically important benefits.

A post hoc analysis of subgroup outcomes and creatinine in the phase III clinical trial (EMPOWER) of dexpramipexole in ALS.

Our objective was to compare the phase II and phase III (EMPOWER) studies of dexpramipexole in ALS and evaluate potential EMPOWER responder subgroups and biomarkers based on significant inter-study population differences. In a post hoc analysis, we compared the baseline population characteristics of both dexpramipexole studies and analyzed EMPOWER efficacy outcomes and laboratory measures in subgroups defined by significant inter-study differences. Results showed that, compared with phase II, the proportion of El Escorial criteria (EEC) definite participants decreased (p = 0.005), riluzole use increased (p = 0.002), and mean symptom duration increased (p = 0.037) significantly in EMPOWER. Baseline creatinine (p < 0.001) and on-study creatinine change (p < 0.001) correlated significantly with ALSFRS-R in EMPOWER. In the EMPOWER subgroup defined by EEC-definite ALS, riluzole use, and < median symptom duration (15.3 months), dexpramipexole-treated participants had reduced ALSFRS-R slope decline (p = 0.015), decreased mortality (p = 0.011), and reduced creatinine loss (p = 0.003). In conclusion, significant differences existed between the phase II and EMPOWER study populations in ALS clinical trials of dexpramipexole. In a post hoc analysis of EMPOWER subgroups defined by these differences, potential clinical benefits of dexpramipexole were identified in the subgroup of riluzole-treated, short-symptom duration, EEC-definite ALS participants. Creatinine loss correlated with disease progression and was reduced in dexpramipexole-treated participants, suggesting it as a candidate biomarker.

Dexpramipexole versus placebo for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (EMPOWER): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, dexpramipexole (25-150 mg twice daily) was well tolerated for up to 9 months and showed a significant benefit at the high dose in a combined assessment of function and mortality in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dexpramipexole in a phase 3 trial of patients with familial or sporadic disease. METHODS: In our randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (EMPOWER), we enrolled participants aged 18-80 years (with first amyotrophic lateral sclerosis symptom onset 24 months or less before baseline) at 81 academic medical centres in 11 countries. We randomly allocated eligible participants (1:1) with a centralised voice-interactive online system to twice-daily dexpramipexole 150 mg or matched placebo for 12-18 months, stratified by trial site, area of disease onset (bulbar vs other areas), and previous use of riluzole. The primary endpoint was the combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS) score, based on changes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) total scores and time to death up to 12 months. We assessed the primary endpoint in all participants who received at least one dose and had at least one post-dose ALSFRS-R measurement or died. We monitored adverse events in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01281189. FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2011, and Sept 30, 2011, we enrolled 943 participants (474 randomly allocated dexpramipexole, 468 randomly allocated placebo, and one withdrew). Least-square mean CAFS scores at 12 months did not differ between participants in the dexpramipexole group (score 441·76, 95% CI 415·43-468·08) and those in the placebo group (438·84, 412·81-464·88; p=0·86). At 12 months, we noted no differences in mean change from baseline in ALSFRS-R total score (-13·34 in the dexpramipexole group vs -13·42 in the placebo group; p=0·90) or time to death (74 [16%] vs 79 [17%]; hazard ratio 1·03 [0·75-1·43]; p=0·84). 37 (8%) participants in the dexpramipexole group developed neutropenia compared with eight (2%) participants in the placebo group, and incidence of other adverse events was similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Dexpramipexole was generally well tolerated but did not differ from placebo on any prespecified efficacy endpoint measurement. Our trial can inform the design of future clinical research strategies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. FUNDING: Biogen Idec.

The Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS): a new endpoint for ALS clinical trials.

Our objective was to describe a new endpoint for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS). CAFS ranks patients' clinical outcomes based on survival time and change in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score. Each patient's outcome is compared to every other patient's outcome, assigned a score, and the summed scores are ranked. The mean rank score for each treatment group can then be calculated. A higher mean CAFS score indicates a better group outcome. Historically, ALS clinical trials have assessed survival and function as independent endpoints. Combined endpoints have been used in other diseases to decrease the confounding effect of mortality on analysis of functional outcomes. We explored the application of a similar approach in ALS, the CAFS endpoint, which was used as a pre-specified secondary analysis in a phase II study of dexpramipexole. Those results and some hypothetical examples based on modeling exercises are presented here. CAFS is the primary endpoint of a dexpramipexole phase III study in ALS. In conclusion, the CAFS is a robust statistical tool for ALS clinical trials and appropriately accounts for and weights mortality in the analysis of function.

The effects of dexpramipexole (KNS-760704) in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by upper and lower motor neuron dysfunction and loss, rapidly progressive muscle weakness, wasting and death. Many factors, including mitochondrial dysfunction, may contribute to ALS pathogenesis. Riluzole, which has shown only modest benefits in a measure of survival time without demonstrated effects on muscle strength or function, is the only approved treatment for ALS. We tested the putative mitochondrial modulator dexpramipexole (KNS-760704; (6R)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-N6-propyl-2,6-benzothiazole-diamine) in subjects with ALS in a two-part, double-blind safety and tolerability study, with a preliminary assessment of its effects on functional decline and mortality. In part 1, the effects of dexpramipexole (50, 150 or 300 mg d(-1)) versus placebo were assessed over 12 weeks. In part 2, after a 4-week, single-blind placebo washout, continuing subjects were re-randomized to dexpramipexole at 50 mg d(-1) or 300 mg d(-1) as double-blind active treatment for 24 weeks. Dexpramipexole was safe and well tolerated. Trends showing a dose-dependent attenuation of the slope of decline of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) in part 1 and a statistically significant (P = 0.046) difference between groups in a joint rank test of change from baseline in ALSFRS-R and mortality in part 2 strongly support further testing of dexpramipexole in ALS.

A double-blind, randomized comparative study of aripiprazole and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of atypical agents. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole (n = 355) with olanzapine (n = 348) in patients with schizophrenia experiencing acute relapse. After a 6-week acute treatment phase, patients with Clinical Global Impression-Improvement = 1-3 or > or = 20% reduction in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) Total score could progress to the 46-week outpatient extension phase. Co-primary study objectives were to compare efficacy at Week 6 and weight gain liability from baseline to Week 26. RESULTS: The mean olanzapine dose was 15.4 mg/day compared with a mean aripiprazole dose of 23.0 mg/day. More patients treated with olanzapine (47%) completed the 52-week study than those treated with aripiprazole (39%); time to discontinuation was significantly in favor of olanzapine (p < .05). At Week 6, mean change in PANSS Total score (olanzapine, -29.5; aripiprazole, -24.6 [random regression model]) showed a treatment difference of 4.9 points. As the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (6 points) was within the 95% confidence interval (2.2-7.6) for treatment difference, olanzapine proved to be superior to aripiprazole on this measure. More patients experienced significant weight gain at Week 26 with olanzapine (40%) than with aripiprazole (21%; p < .05 [weighted generalized estimating equation analysis]), with significant differences observed from Week 3. Mean weight gain at Week 26 was significantly greater with olanzapine than with aripiprazole (+4.30 kg vs. +.13 kg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine had a statistically significant efficacy advantage over aripiprazole, whereas aripiprazole was associated with significantly less weight gain.

A case study comparing a randomized withdrawal trial and a double-blind long-term trial for assessing the long-term efficacy of an antidepressant.

Assessing long-term efficacy in psychiatric drugs involves a number of complex questions, and the priaority of these questions is different for different disorders and for different stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential that we not adopt a one-method-fits-all approach, but rather adapt the specific details of the designs and analysis of data from long-term trials to individual disease states. Randomized withdrawal (RW) designs, even though addressing a specific question of particular interest, face some difficult methodological and ethical challenges. A less common alternative design, termed the double-blind long-term efficacy (DBLE) design, is logistically similar to traditional responder extension designs. However, use of an analytic approach that includes all randomized patients rather than only the selected subset that continued beyond acute treatment avoids the major criticism of the extender design. The present paper illustrates the attributes of the RW and DBLE designs by analyzing data from trials adopting these designs. The RW and DBLE designs address different questions, and are thus not directly comparable. Potential benefits of the DBLE design include: (1) the parsimonious use of patients and the resultant reduced exposure to placebo as each patient can contribute to multiple developmental objectives; (2) the results are generalizable to actual clinical practice as the design matches treatment guidelines; and, (3) results of safety assessments are meaningful as they involve all randomized patients. Our case study suggests that the DBLE design can provide definitive answers to important questions and may be a useful design for assessing long-term treatment effects.

Attrition in randomized controlled clinical trials: methodological issues in psychopharmacology.

Attrition is a ubiquitous problem in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) of psychotropic agents that can cause biased estimates of the treatment effect, reduce statistical power, and restrict the generalizability of results. The extent of the problem of attrition in central nervous system (CNS) trials is considered here and its consequences are examined. The taxonomy of missingness mechanisms is then briefly reviewed in order to introduce issues underlying the choice of data analytic strategies appropriate for RCTs with various forms of incomplete data. The convention of using last observation carried forward to accommodate attrition is discouraged because its assumptions are typically inappropriate for CNS RCTs, whereas multiple imputation strategies are more appropriate. Mixed-effects models often provide a useful data analytic strategy for attrition as do the pattern-mixture and propensity adjustments. Finally, investigators are encouraged to consider asking participants, at each assessment session, the likelihood of attendance at the subsequent assessment session. This information can be used to eliminate some of the very obstacles that lead to attrition, and can be incorporated in data analyses to reduce bias, but it will not eliminate all attrition bias.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole vs. haloperidol for long-term maintenance treatment following acute relapse of schizophrenia.

Aripiprazole is a novel atypical antipsychotic for the treatment of schizophrenia. It is a D2 receptor partial agonist with partial agonist activity at 5-HT1A receptors and antagonist activity at 5-HT2A receptors. The long-term efficacy and safety of aripiprazole (30 mg/d) relative to haloperidol (10 mg/d) were investigated in two 52-wk, randomized, double-blind, multicentre studies (using similar protocols which were prospectively identified to be pooled for analysis) in 1294 patients in acute relapse with a diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia and who had previously responded to antipsychotic medications. Aripiprazole demonstrated long-term efficacy that was comparable or superior to haloperidol across all symptoms measures, including significantly greater improvements for PANSS negative subscale scores and MADRS total score (p<0.05). The time to discontinuation for any reason was significantly greater with aripiprazole than with haloperidol (p=0.0001). Time to discontinuation due to adverse events or lack of efficacy was significantly greater with aripiprazole than with haloperidol (p=0.0001). Aripiprazole was associated with significantly lower scores on all extrapyramidal symptoms assessments than haloperidol (p<0.001). In summary, aripiprazole demonstrated efficacy equivalent or superior to haloperidol with associated benefits for safety and tolerability. Aripiprazole represents a promising new option for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia.