Vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg vs. lansoprazole 15 mg as maintenance therapy in Asian patients with healed erosive esophagitis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Erosive esophagitis (EE) is a gastroesophageal reflux disease characterized by mucosal breaks in the esophagus. Proton pump inhibitors are widely used as maintenance therapy for EE, but many patients still relapse. In this trial, we evaluated the noninferiority of vonoprazan vs. lansoprazole as maintenance therapy in patients with healed EE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial among non-Japanese Asian adults with endoscopically confirmed healed EE from April 2015 to February 2019. Patients from China, South Korea, and Malaysia were randomized to vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg once daily or lansoprazole 15 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was endoscopically confirmed EE recurrence rate over 24 weeks with a noninferiority margin of 10% using a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded. RESULTS: Among 703 patients, EE recurrence was observed in 24/181 (13.3%) and 21/171 (12.3%) patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg or 20 mg, respectively, and 47/184 (25.5%) patients receiving lansoprazole (differences: -12.3% [95% CI, -20.3% to -4.3%] and -13.3% [95% CI, -21.3% to -5.3%], respectively), meeting the primary endpoint of noninferiority to lansoprazole in preventing EE recurrence at 24 weeks. Evidence of superiority (upper bound of 95% CI <0%) was also observed. At 12 weeks, endoscopically confirmed EE recurrence was observed in 5/18, 2/20, and 7/20 of patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, and lansoprazole, respectively. TEAEs were experienced by 66.8% (157/235), 69.0% (156/226), and 65.3% (158/242) of patients receiving vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, and lansoprazole, respectively. The most common TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection in 12.8% (30/235) and 12.8% (29/226) patients in vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg groups, respectively and 8.7% (21/242) patients in lansoprazole group. CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan maintenance therapy was well-tolerated and noninferior to lansoprazole for preventing EE recurrence in Asian patients with healed EE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02388737.

A randomized, double-blind phase 1b study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the NLRP3 inhibitor selnoflast in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The NLRP3 inflammasome drives release of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-1ß and IL-18 and is a potential target for ulcerative colitis (UC). Selnoflast (RO7486967) is an orally active, potent, selective and reversible small molecule NLRP3 inhibitor. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 1b study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of selnoflast. METHODS: Nineteen adults with previous diagnosis of UC and current active moderate to severe disease were randomized 2:1 to selnoflast or placebo for 7 days. A dose of 450 mg QD (once daily) was selected to achieve 90% IL-1ß inhibition in plasma and colon tissue. Consecutive blood, sigmoid colon biopsies and stool samples were analyzed for a variety of PD markers. Safety and PK were also evaluated. RESULTS: Selnoflast was well-tolerated. Plasma concentrations increased rapidly after oral administration, reaching Tmax 1 h post-dose. Mean plasma concentrations stayed above the IL-1ß IC90 level throughout the dosing interval (mean Ctrough on Day 1 and Day 5: 2.55 µg/mL and 2.66 µg/mL, respectively). At steady state, post-dose selnoflast concentrations in sigmoid colon (5-20 µg/g) were above the IC90 . Production of IL-1ß was reduced in whole blood following ex vivo stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (in the selnoflast arm). No changes were observed in plasma IL-18 levels. There were no meaningful differences in the expression of an IL-1-related gene signature in sigmoid colon tissue, and no differences in the expression of stool biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Selnoflast was safe and well-tolerated. Selnoflast 450 mg QD achieved plasma and tissue exposure predicted to maintain IL-1ß IC90 over the dosing interval. However, PD biomarker results showed no robust differences between treatment arms, suggesting no major therapeutic effects are to be expected in UC. The limitations of this study are its small sample size and indirect assessment of the effect on IL-1ß in tissue. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16847938.

Randomized clinical trial: A double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 20 or 40 mg versus esomeprazole 40 mg in patients with symptomatic gastro-esophageal reflux disease and partial response to a healing dose of a proton-pump inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are cornerstone treatments for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, evidence suggests that most patients exhibit partial response to PPIs, suggesting the need for novel therapies that can provide an improved and sustained increase in gastric pH. AIMS: This study aimed to determine the effect of vonoprazan, a novel, orally active small-molecule potassium-competitive acid blocker, versus esomeprazole, a PPI, in preventing heartburn symptoms over a 4-week treatment period in patients with GERD and a partial response to esomeprazole treatment. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 clinical trial was conducted between 2016 and 2018 at 39 sites across Europe and designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan 20 mg once daily (q.d.) and 40 mg q.d. versus esomeprazole 40 mg q.d. after 1:1:1 randomization of symptomatic patients with GERD and a partial response to a healing dose of esomeprazole. RESULTS: Overall, 256 eligible patients (female, 59.4%; mean age, 52.6 years) received vonoprazan 20 mg (n = 85), vonoprazan 40 mg (n = 85), or esomeprazole 40 mg (n = 86); mean (SD) percentages of heartburn-free 24-h periods during double-blind treatment were 36.7% (33.4%), 36.5% (35.6%), and 38.4% (34.8%), respectively, with no intergroup statistical significance. Vonoprazan exposure increased proportionally from the 20-mg to 40-mg dose (mean Cmax : 23.3 ng/ml to 47.1 ng/ml, respectively). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, with no deaths reported. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in efficacy and safety was observed among treatment groups, and vonoprazan was well tolerated. The trial is registered with the National Board of Health (EudraCT: 2015-001154-14) database.

Vonoprazan non-inferior to lansoprazole in treating duodenal ulcer and eradicating Helicobacter pylori in Asian patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Duodenal ulcers, especially caused by increasingly drug-resistant Helicobacter pylori, are a concern in Asia. We compared oral vonoprazan versus lansoprazole for efficacy (healing duodenal ulcers) and safety in non-Japanese Asian patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized (1:1), double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study (April 5, 2017, to July 19, 2019), patients with ≥ 1 endoscopically confirmed duodenal ulcer, at 52 hospitals (China, South Korea, and Taiwan), received vonoprazan 20 mg once daily (QD) or lansoprazole 30 mg QD for 6 weeks maximum. Patients with H. pylori received bismuth-containing quadruple therapy including vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily (BID) or lansoprazole 30 mg BID, for 2 weeks, followed by vonoprazan or lansoprazole monotherapy QD (4 weeks maximum). Endpoints were endoscopically confirmed duodenal ulcer healing (Week 4/6; primary) and H. pylori eradication (4 weeks post-treatment; secondary); non-inferiority margins were -6% and -10%, using a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of 533 enrolled patients, one was lost to follow-up and one withdrew (full analysis set: 531 patients [vonoprazan, n = 263; lansoprazole, n = 268]; 85.4% = H. pylori positive). Vonoprazan was non-inferior to lansoprazole for duodenal ulcer healing (96.9% vs 96.5%; difference 0.4% [95% CI -3.00, 3.79]). H. pylori eradication rates were 91.5% (vonoprazan) and 86.8% (lansoprazole; difference 4.7% [95% CI -1.28, 10.69]). Vonoprazan and lansoprazole were well tolerated, with similar safety profiles, no new safety signals; no deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan was well tolerated and non-inferior to lansoprazole for duodenal ulcer healing and achieved H. pylori eradication above the clinically meaningful threshold (90%), in non-Japanese Asian patients.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Oral Compared with Sublingual Ketamine Lozenges as Rescue Analgesics in Adults for Acute Pain: The OSKet Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ketamine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDA) antagonist used widely as an intravenous analgesic for treatment of acute pain. Its use as oral and sublingual analgesics is not well studied. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of oral (PO) versus sublingual (SL) ketamine lozenges in adult patients with moderate-to-severe breakthrough pain. METHODS: The study had a randomized, double-blind crossover design in 23 inpatients requiring ketamine as rescue analgesics when pain scores exceeded 4/10 on the Numerical Rating Scales. Each participant received either SL 50 mg ketamine lozenge and PO placebo lozenge or SL placebo lozenge and PO 50 mg ketamine lozenge in two treatment periods with a minimum 24-h washout. Pain scores and adverse effects were documented half hourly for the first 2 h, then one hourly for the next 2 h after treatment. The time to first effect and time to meaningful pain relief were recorded. Patients reported their satisfaction and a global impression of change (GIC) at the end of each treatment period. Data were analysed using random effects regression models. RESULTS: Sixteen subjects completed both days, 7 completed 1 day. Time to first effect was 13.1 min PO versus 6.6 min SL (p = 0.069), time to meaningful pain relief was 29.4 min PO versus 10.8 min SL (p = 0.02). Pain scores were not significantly different at all time points post-treatment. Satisfaction and GIC scores were similar for both groups. Overall, adverse events occurred more often with SL administration (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual administration of ketamine led to a faster onset of pain relief (but also a higher adverse event rate), but in all other aspects treatment with ketamine given sublingually and orally produced similar analgesic effects. ACTRN: ACTRN12621000240842, 08/03/2021, retrospectively registered.

Phase III, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan compared with lansoprazole in Asian patients with erosive oesophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in the treatment of Asian patients with erosive oesophagitis (EO). DESIGN: In this phase III, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed EO were randomised 1:1 to receive vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg, once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was EO healing rate at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints were EO healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: In the vonoprazan (n=238) and lansoprazole (n=230) arms, 8-week EO healing rates were 92.4% and 91.3%, respectively (difference 1.1% (95% CI -3.822% to 6.087%)). The respective 2-week EO healing rates were 75.0% and 67.8% (difference 7.2% (95% CI -1.054% to 15.371%)), and the respective 4-week EO healing rates were 85.3% and 83.5% (difference 1.8% (95% CI -4.763% to 8.395%)). In patients with baseline Los Angeles classification grade C/D, 2-week, 4-week and 8-week EO healing rates were higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole (2 weeks: 62.2% vs 51.5%, difference 10.6% (95% CI -5.708% to 27.002%); 4 weeks: 73.3% vs 67.2%, difference 6.2% (95% CI -8.884 to 21.223); and 8 weeks: 84.0% vs 80.6%, difference 3.4% (95% CI -9.187% to 15.993%)). Overall, EO healing rates appeared higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole. TEAE rates were 38.1% and 36.6% in the vonoprazan and lansoprazole group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in terms of EO healing rate at 8 weeks in this population. Safety outcomes were similar in the two treatment arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388724.

Current smoking habits in British IBD patients in the age of e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: Smoking has a detrimental effect on Crohn's disease (CD) while data on ulcerative colitis (UC) are conflicting. Smoking habits have changed dramatically in the UK due to a public smoking ban and the advent of e-cigarettes. We describe current smoking rates in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and any effects on disease course. METHODS: Self-reported smoking status was elicited in outpatients with IBD, and clinical data were extracted from patient records. RESULTS: Of 465 patients (58% CD, 42% UC), 247 (53.1%) were ever-smokers (37.4% ex-smokers, 15.7% current smokers). Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were ever used by 28 patients (15 current users). All e-cigarette users had previously smoked cigarettes and 13 had stopped smoking completely. Patients with CD were more likely to currently smoke (21.5% vs 7.7%, p<0.001) than those with UC. Ever use of biological therapy was higher in current smokers compared with never smokers (49% vs 35%, p=0.034). The need for surgery was higher in current smokers compared with never smokers (43% vs 25%, p=0.006). The risk of CD complications during 21-month prospective follow-up was numerically higher for current smoker versus e-cigarette users (53% vs 17%, p=0.19).Compared with the general population, the proportion of current cigarette smokers (14.9% vs 15.1%) and e-cigarette users was similar in our cohort (4.26% vs 5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD show similar smoking behaviour to the general population. E-cigarettes were used as replacement for cigarettes or by some as an intermediate step for smoking cessation. Larger, prospective studies are required to fully determine the effects of e-cigarettes on IBD.

Impact of quadrivalent influenza vaccine on public health and influenza-related costs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Annual trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) containing three influenza strains (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and one B) have been recommended for the prevention of influenza. However, worldwide co-circulation of two distinct B lineages (Victoria and Yamagata) and difficulties in predicting which lineage will predominate each season have led to the development of quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV), which include both B lineages. Our analysis evaluates the public health benefit and associated influenza-related costs avoided which would have been obtained by using QIV rather than TIV in Australia over the period 2002-2012. METHODS: A static model stratified by age group was used, focusing on people at increased risk of influenza as defined by the Australian vaccination recommendations. B-lineage cross-protection was accounted for. We calculated the potential impact of QIV compared with TIV over the seasons 2002-2012 (2009 pandemic year excluded) using Australian data on influenza circulation, vaccine coverage, hospitalisation and mortality rates as well as unit costs, and international data on vaccine effectiveness, influenza attack rate, GP consultation rate and working days lost. Third-party payer and societal influenza-related costs were estimated in 2014 Australian dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Using QIV instead of TIV over the period 2002-2012 would have prevented an estimated 68,271 additional influenza cases, 47,537 GP consultations, 3,522 hospitalisations and 683 deaths in the population at risk of influenza. These results translate into influenza-related societal costs avoided of $46.5 million. The estimated impact of QIV was higher for young children and the elderly. The overall impact of QIV depended mainly on vaccine effectiveness and the influenza attack rate attributable to the mismatched B lineage. CONCLUSION: The broader protection offered by QIV would have reduced the number of influenza infections and its related complications, leading to substantial influenza-related costs avoided.

Pain management after ambulatory surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Poor pain management has been a problem after ambulatory surgery. This review examines the current situation and recent advances in the area. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite significant scientific advances in the management of postoperative pain, surveys continue to show poor pain control in the routine clinical setting of day-case surgery. Causes are poor implementation of the progress and lack of adherence to established guidelines with too much reliance on opioids and lack of continuation of analgesic techniques into the postoperative period. The current literature with regard to systemic analgesia supports the concept of multimodal analgesia with an emphasis on the widespread use of appropriate nonopioids including NSAIDs or cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors. The other mainstay of pain management after ambulatory surgery should be local anaesthetics, either used single shot, but with appropriate adjuvants, or by continuous peripheral nerve blocks. The latter techniques show increasingly promising results with a good safety record and are reviewed extensively. SUMMARY: Multimodal analgesia and local anaesthetic techniques are the avenues to improve the still disappointing quality of analgesia after ambulatory surgery.

Development of a sublingual/oral formulation of ketamine for use in neuropathic pain: Preliminary findings from a three-way randomized, crossover study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Enterally administered low-dose ketamine is being used increasingly to treat pain states. However, suitable oral or sublingual formulations are not available. The objective of the study was to develop a lozenge formulation of ketamine for use in patients with neuropathic pain, and to investigate its storage stability and bioavailability after oral or sublingual administration. METHODS: A lozenge containing 25 mg of ketamine was formulated and manufactured in a hospital pharmacy setting. Stability was assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) during storage at 25 degrees C or 2-8 degrees C for up to 14 weeks. Bioavailability after both oral and sublingual administration was evaluated in six patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Ketamine and its metabolite norketamine in plasma were measured by HPLC. RESULTS: The lozenge formulation was chemically stable for at least 14 weeks. Oral and sublingual bioavailabilities [median (interquartile range)] were 24% (17-27%) and 24% (19-49%), respectively. There was substantial metabolism to norketamine for both routes. The mean norketamine/ketamine area under the plasma concentration-time curve from baseline to 8 hours ratios were 5 and 2.1 after oral or sublingual administration, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ketamine lozenge showed acceptable storage stability. Bioavailability was sufficiently high and reproducible to support its use in routine pain management. There was extensive first-pass conversion to norketamine. Efficacy studies are warranted to evaluate sublingual and oral administration of our new lozenge formulation of ketamine in patients with chronic pain states. Investigation of the role of the metabolite norketamine, which is also an NMDA receptor antagonist, is particularly important because this may contribute significantly to clinical efficacy.