Neutralizing Antibody Formation with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) Treatment from Global Registration Studies across Multiple Indications: A Meta-Analysis.

Though the formation of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) during treatment with botulinum neurotoxin is rare, their presence may nonetheless affect the biological activity of botulinum toxin and negatively impact clinical response. The goal of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate and characterize the rate of NAb formation using an expanded dataset composed of 33 prospective placebo-controlled and open-label clinical trials with nearly 30,000 longitudinal subject records prior to and following onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in 10 therapeutic and aesthetic indications. Total onabotulinumtoxinA doses per treatment ranged from 10 U to 600 U administered in ≤15 treatment cycles. The NAb formation at baseline and post-treatment was tested and examined for impact on clinical safety and efficacy. Overall, 27 of the 5876 evaluable subjects (0.5%) developed NAbs after onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. At study exit, 16 of the 5876 subjects (0.3%) remained NAb positive. Due to the low incidence of NAb formation, no clear relationship was discernable between positive NAb results and gender, indication, dose level, dosing interval, treatment cycles, or the site of injection. Only five subjects who developed NAbs post-treatment were considered secondary nonresponders. Subjects who developed NAbs revealed no other evidence of immunological reactions or clinical disorders. This comprehensive meta-analysis confirms the low NAb formation rate following onabotulinumtoxinA treatment across multiple indications, and its limited clinical impact on treatment safety and efficacy.

Setipiprant for Androgenetic Alopecia in Males: Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2a Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate oral setipiprant versus placebo for scalp hair growth in men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Males aged 18 to 49 years with AGA were enrolled in a double-blind, multicenter, 32-week, phase 2a trial; randomized to twice-daily (BID) 1000-mg (2×500 mg for a total daily dose of 2000 mg) setipiprant tablets or placebo for 24 weeks; and assessed at weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24, with a week 32 follow-up. The study initially included a finasteride 1-mg once-daily group, removed by protocol amendment. Changes from baseline to week 24 in target area hair count (TAHC) and blinded Subject Self-Assessment (SSA) of target area photographs were coprimary efficacy endpoints. Hair growth was also evaluated using blinded Investigator Global Assessment (IGA). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory tests. Analysis of covariance models were used to test statistical significance for TAHC, SSA, and IGA. Data were summarized without statistical analysis for finasteride. RESULTS: Randomized subjects (N=169) included 74 placebo, 83 setipiprant, and 12 finasteride subjects; 117 (69.2%) and 113 (66.9%) subjects completed week 24 and 32 visits, respectively. Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. Neither coprimary efficacy endpoint was met. At week 24, TAHC and SSA findings indicated no hair growth improvements with setipiprant versus placebo. Setipiprant also did not improve hair growth versus placebo per the IGA. Treatment-related AEs, all mild or moderate in severity, occurred in 12.3%, 25.9%, and 25.0% of the placebo, setipiprant, and finasteride groups, respectively. Two treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs), cellulitis and multiple sclerosis, were reported in the placebo group, both unrelated to treatment. No TESAEs were reported with setipiprant or finasteride. CONCLUSION: Setipiprant 1000 mg BID was safe and well tolerated but did not demonstrate efficacy versus placebo for scalp hair growth in men with AGA.

Safety and Stability of Pulmonary Function in Patients with Decreased Respiratory Function Treated for Spasticity with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

Two randomized, placebo-controlled studies evaluated the pulmonary function safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) for treatment of upper and/or lower limb spasticity. Patients with stable baseline respiratory status received one or two treatments with placebo, 240 U, or 360 U of onabotA. Pulmonary function tests, adverse events, and efficacy were measured at least every 6 weeks for 18 weeks (Study 1) or 30 weeks (Study 2). Study 1 enrolled 109 patients (n = 36-37/group) and Study 2 enrolled 155 patients (n = 48-54/group). Mean baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) was 76-78% of predicted per group in Study 1 and 71% of predicted per group in Study 2. In Study 1, change from baseline FVC values were significantly (p < 0.05) decreased vs. placebo at weeks 3 (240 U -57 mL vs. placebo +110 mL) and 12 (360 U -6 mL vs. +167 mL placebo). In Study 2, change from baseline FVC values were significantly decreased in the 360 U group vs. placebo at weeks 6 (-78 mL vs. +49 mL placebo), 13 (-60 mL vs. +119 mL placebo), 18 (-128 mL vs. +80 mL placebo), and 24 (-82 mL vs. +149 mL placebo). Individual pulmonary function-related adverse events were not correlated with PFT decreases. The most frequent pulmonary-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis (Study 1) and upper respiratory tract infection (Study 2). Ashworth scores were significantly improved at multiple time points in both studies. Injection of onabotA for spasticity in patients with decreased pulmonary function, at single and repeated doses of up to 360 U, was associated with small but statistically significant decreases in FVC or forced expiratory volume 1 s (FEV1) (>12% and 200 mL) that were subclinical and not correlated with any adverse clinical pulmonary events.

Once-Daily Oral Sarecycline 1.5 mg/kg/day Is Effective for Moderate to Severe Acne Vulgaris: Results from Two Identically Designed, Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Side effects may limit the use of current tetracycline-class antibiotics for acne. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily sarecycline, a novel, narrow-spectrum tetracycline-class antibiotic, in moderate to severe acne. METHODS: Patients 9-45 years with moderate to severe facial acne (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥ 3, 20-50 inflammatory and ≤ 100 noninflammatory lesions, and ≤ 2 nodules) were randomized 1:1 to sarecycline 1.5 mg/kg/day or placebo for 12 weeks in identically designed phase 3 studies (SC1401 and SC1402). RESULTS: In SC1401 (sarecycline n=483, placebo n=485) and SC1402 (sarecycline n=519, placebo n=515), at week 12, IGA success (≥ 2-grade improvement and score 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]) rates were 21.9% and 22.6% (sarecycline), respectively, versus 10.5% and 15.3% (placebo; P less than 0.0001 and P equals 0.0038). Onset of efficacy in inflammatory lesions occurred by the first visit (week 3), with mean percentage reduction in inflammatory lesions at week 12 in SC1401 and SC1402 of -51.8% and -49.9% (sarecycline), respectively, versus -35.1% and -35.4% (placebo; P less than 0.0001). Onset of efficacy for absolute reduction of noninflammatory lesion count occurred at week 6 in SC1401 (P less than 0.05) and week 9 in SC1402 (P less than 0.01). In SC1401, the most common TEAEs (in ≥ 2% of either sarecycline or placebo group) were nausea (4.6% [sarecycline]; 2.5% [placebo]), nasopharyngitis (3.1%; 1.7%), headache (2.7%; 2.7%), and vomiting (2.1%; 1.4%) and, in SC1402, nasopharyngitis (2.5%; 2.9%) and headache (2.9%; 4.9%). Most were not considered treatment-related. Vestibular (dizziness, tinnitus, vertigo) and phototoxic (sunburn, photosensitivity) TEAEs both occurred in ≤ 1% of sarecycline patients. Gastrointestinal TEAE rates for sarecycline were low. Among females, vulvovaginal candidiasis (SC1401: 1.1% [sarecycline] and 0 [placebo]; SC1402: 0.3% and 0) and mycotic infection (0.7% and 0; 1.0% and 0) rates were low. CONCLUSION: The narrow-spectrum antibiotic sarecycline was safe, well tolerated, and effective for moderate to severe acne, with low rates of side effects common with tetracycline antibiotics. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(9):987-996.

Meta-analysis of neutralizing antibody conversion with onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) across multiple indications.

This meta-analysis evaluated the frequency of neutralizing antibody (nAb) conversion with onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®; Allergan) across five studied indications. The analysis was based on large, controlled or prospective, open-label trials (durations 4 months to ≥2 years). Serum samples were analyzed for nAbs using the Mouse Protection Assay. Subjects who were antibody negative at baseline and had at least one analyzable postbaseline antibody assay result were included. The 16 clinical studies included 3,006 subjects; of these, 2,240 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Subjects received 1-15 treatments (mean 3.8 treatments) with onabotulinumtoxinA. Total doses per treatment cycle ranged from 10 or 20 units in glabellar lines to 20-500 units in cervical dystonia. The numbers of subjects who converted from an antibody-negative status at baseline to antibody-positive status at any post-treatment time point were: cervical dystonia 4/312 (1.28%), glabellar lines 2/718 (0.28%), overactive bladder 0/22 (0%), post-stroke spasticity 1/317 (0.32%), and primary axillary hyperhidrosis 4/871 (0.46%). Across all indications, 11/2,240 subjects (0.49%) converted from antibody negative at baseline to positive at one or more post-treatment time points, but only three subjects became clinically unresponsive to onabotulinumtoxinA at some point following a positive assay. Based on these large trials, the frequency of antibody conversion after onabotulinumtoxinA treatment is very low, and infrequently leads to loss of efficacy. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.

Safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of facial lines: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from global clinical registration studies in 1678 participants.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of facial lines is a widely used cosmetic medical procedure and, as such, the safety and tolerability profile is of interest to health care providers and patients. Based on data from individual studies that were conducted according to regulatory guidelines to provide adequate safety and efficacy data to support product licensure (registration studies), the overall benefit:risk profile of onabotulinumtoxinA for facial lines has been favorable. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to increase statistical power through meta-analysis to detect treatment group differences in adverse event (AE) incidence that may not have been evident in individual registration studies. METHODS: Individual participant data (n = 1678) were from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and 3 open-label studies. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were for lateral canthal lines (3-18 U/side) and all others were for glabellar lines (10 or 20 U). Doses used reflect global product labeling in countries where licensed. RESULTS: Participant population was non-Hispanic white (43%) or Asian (52%) and predominantly female (88%). In double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, overall AE incidence did not significantly differ by treatment group (onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo). The only individual AEs with significantly greater incidence in the onabotulinumtoxinA group were eyelid sensory disorder (2.5% vs 0.3%, P = .004; verbatim phrases "tight," "pressured," "heavy," "drooping feeling," "feeling of droopiness") and eyelid ptosis (1.8% vs 0%, P = .02), both present only in glabellar studies. Overall treatment-related (per investigator) AE incidence was greater in the onabotulinumtoxinA group versus placebo (24% vs 16%, P = .005), and treatment-related eyelid edema was an additional AE with significantly higher incidence in the onabotulinumtoxinA group versus placebo (P = .04). Incidence of all 3 of these AEs significantly decreased as number of treatment cycles increased. Eyelid sensory disorder and eyelid edema were more common in Asian participants. Acne, injection site pruritus, oral herpes, rash, lower respiratory tract infection, dental caries, and eye pain were significantly more common in placebo-treated compared with onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants. Serious AE incidence did not significantly differ by treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo) and no serious AEs were treatment related. There were no symptoms of weakness remote to the injection site or related to the central nervous system. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included: (1) highly visible efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA may have resulted in reporting bias; (2) reliance on participant intervisit recall; (3) a relatively short follow-up period (1 year); (4) conclusions are based solely on the doses analyzed (ie, those used in the respective trials); and (5) exclusion of patients with severe medical disease in registration studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms the safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for glabellar and lateral canthal lines, at the doses studied, based on the most comprehensive controlled safety analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA performed to date. The AEs observed were generally mild to moderate; most treatment-related AEs were related either to physical injection of product or local pharmacologic effects. Even with the increased statistical power of a large sample size, no new onabotulinumtoxinA-associated AEs emerged.

Randomized, open-label preference study of two cyclosporine capsule formulations (usp modified) in stable solid-organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has indicated patient dissatisfaction with the odor, size, and taste of cyclosporine capsules, as well as the halitosis and body odor the capsules can cause. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this investigation were to (1) compare the overall cyclosporine capsule preference (Gengraf vs Neoral) in stable, solid-organ transplant recipients, (2) assess patient preference based on specific capsule attributes, and (3) determine the reliability of the Cyclosporine Capsule SatiSfaCtion Survey (original to this study). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, preference study, patients were recruited from 144 centers in North America with established transplant programs. Solid-organ transplant recipients who had taken stable doses of cyclosporine (Neoral) for >/=2 consecutive months were randomized in a 9:1 ratio to receive another cyclosporine formulation (Gengraf) or to remain on Neoral therapy. Patients completed the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey prior to randomization (baseline survey) and after taking the study drug for 4 weeks (final survey). The survey consisted of multiple attribute items with high face validity in assessing patients' perceptions and preferences with regard to their overall experience, as well as specific attributes of cyclosporine capsules known to affect patient acceptance. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 1906 patients (1211 men, 693 women [sex unknown in 2 patients]; mean [SD] age, 50.2 [12.4] years). A total of 1708 patients were switched to Gengraf; 198 continued on Neoral. Based on their overall experience with both capsule formulations, the majority of patients switched to Gengraf (61.9%) responded that they preferred the Gengraf capsule, compared with 13.7% who preferred the Neoral capsule and 24.4% who indicated no preference (P < 0.001). A similar preference for Gengraf was observed based on capsule odor (66.3%), ease of swallowing (51.5%), taste (57.1%), and impact on breath odor (52.5%) and body odor (48.4%) (P < 0.001 for each test). The results of internal consistency and reproducibility calculations were high for the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey. Internal consistency ranged from alpha = 0.84 to 0.95 for the subscales and was alpha = 0.95 for the overall score. Ranges for reproducibility in the subscales were r = 0.75 to 0.79, with an overall reproducibility of r = 0.85. Guyatt's responsiveness statistics for the subscale and overall scores were moderately high to very high, indicating that the survey is capable of measuring change in response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Of the transplant recipients receiving Gengraf in this study, most preferred Gengraf to Neoral based on overall experience, capsule odor, difficulty swallowing, taste, breath odor, and body odor. Among all study patients, fewer patients receiving Gengraf were bothered by capsule odor, difficulty in swallowing, taste, or the impact on breath or body odor compared with patients who continued to receive Neoral. Internal consistency, reproducibility, and responsiveness results show that the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey is a psychometrically valid instrument that is appropriate for use in clinical trials.