Effects of odanacatib on bone-turnover markers in osteoporotic postmenopausal women: a post hoc analysis of the LOFT study.

This post hoc analysis and modeling study examined the mechanism of action of odanacatib using a statistical model to explain sCTx response in ODN-treated patients as a function of other bone-turnover biomarkers that, with other observed biomarker changes, showed that odanacatib persistently inhibited osteoclastic bone removal activity without preventing osteoclastogenesis. INTRODUCTION: Odanacatib (ODN) is an oral selective cathepsin K (CatK) inhibitor, previously in development for osteoporosis treatment. A post hoc analysis examined ODN's mechanism of action on bone-turnover biomarkers. METHODS: A subset of patients who completed 60 months' treatment in the Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT; NCT00529373) (N = 112 [57 ODN, 55 placebo]) were evaluated. Serum (s) and urine (u) samples were assayed at baseline and months 6-60 for 10 known bone-remodeling biomarkers: sCTx, uαα- and ußßCTx/Cr, uNTx/Cr, sNTx, uDPD/Cr, sICTP, sTRAP5b, sPINP, and sBSAP. Because the CrossLaps® CTx assay identifies the CTx peptide as well as larger molecular weight CTx-containing peptides, including ICTP, a best-fit model was developed to explain the transient sCTx reduction in ODN-treated patients. RESULTS: ODN persistently reduced the bone-resorption markers sNTx, uNTx/Cr, uαα- and ußßCTx/Cr, and uDPD/Cr, and gradually increased the target-engagement marker sICTP and osteoclast number (sTRAP5b), versus placebo from baseline to month 60. sCTx was transiently reduced with ODN within 12 months, returning to baseline by month 48. Modeling suggested that sCTx changes in the ODN group were primarily due to increased accumulation of larger CTx species, including sICTP. The bone-formation markers sPINP and sBSAP showed partial reductions, versus placebo, in the first 6 months but approached baseline by months 48-60. CONCLUSION: Observed changes in bone-turnover biomarkers support the persistent efficacy of ODN in direct inhibition of osteoclastic bone-resorption activity, without inhibition of osteoclastogenesis. Long-term evaluation also underscores the unique mechanism of ODN on osteoclastic collagen processing and subsequently osteoblastic bone formation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00529373.

Randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of odanacatib in the treatment of men with osteoporosis.

Odanacatib (ODN) was investigated as an osteoporosis treatment in 292 men. Compared with placebo, odanacatib improved bone mineral density and led to sustained bone resorption decreases while producing relatively little bone formation reduction that leveled off with time. However, increased risk of stroke in another study stopped further odanacatib development. INTRODUCTION: ODN, a selective oral cathepsin K inhibitor, was in development for osteoporosis treatment. This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-month study investigated ODN safety and efficacy in men with osteoporosis. METHODS: Men with idiopathic osteoporosis or osteoporosis due to hypogonadism and a lumbar spine or hip (total hip [TH], femoral neck [FN], or trochanter) bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ - 2.5 to ≥ - 4.0 without prior vertebral fracture or ≤ - 1.5 to ≥ - 4.0 with one prior vertebral fracture were randomized (1:1) to once-weekly ODN 50 mg or placebo. All received 5600 IU vitamin D3 weekly and calcium supplementation as needed (≥ 1200 mg daily). The primary efficacy outcome was changed from baseline in lumbar spine BMD versus placebo. RESULTS: Overall, 292 men, mean age 68.8 years, were randomly assigned to ODN or placebo. Versus placebo, ODN increased BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine, TH, FN, and trochanter by 5.6%, 2.0%, 1.7%, and 2.1%, respectively (all p < 0.01), and decreased uNTx/Cr (68%, p < 0.001), sCTx (77%, p < 0.001), sP1NP (16%, p = 0.001), and sBSAP (8%, p = 0.019). The between-group bone formation marker decrease peaked at 3 months, then returned toward baseline. The safety profile, including cardiovascular events, was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Though a promising osteoporosis therapy for men, ODN development was discontinued due to increased risk of stroke in the LOFT phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01120600 (registered May 11, 2010).

Efficacy and safety of extended-release niacin/laropiprant plus statin vs. doubling the dose of statin in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia.

BACKGROUND: Co-administration of niacin with statin offers the potential for additional lipid management and cardiovascular risk reduction. However, niacin is underutilised because of the side effects of flushing, mediated primarily by prostaglandin D(2) (PGD(2)). A combination tablet containing extended-release niacin and laropiprant (ERN/LRPT), a PGD(2) receptor (DP1) antagonist, offers improved tolerability. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ERN/LRPT added to statin vs. doubling the dose of statin in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia who were not at their National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal based on their coronary heart disease risk category (high, moderate or low). METHODS: After a 2- to 6-week run-in statin (simvastatin 10 or 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg) period, 1216 patients were randomised equally to one of two treatment groups in a double-blind fashion: group 1 received ERN/LRPT (1 g) plus the run-in statin dose and advanced to ERN/LRPT (2 g) after 4 weeks for an additional 8 weeks, with no adjustments to the run-in statin dose; group 2 received simvastatin or atorvastatin at twice their run-in statin dose and remained on this stable dose for 12 weeks. RESULTS: ERN/LRPT added to statin (pooled across statin and statin dose) significantly improved key lipid parameters vs. the doubled statin dose (pooled): the between-treatment group difference in least squares mean per cent change [95% confidence interval (CI)] from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C (primary end-point) was -4.5% (-7.7, -1.3) and in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was 15.6% (13.4, 17.9) and in median per cent change for triglyceride (TG) was -15.4% (-19.2, -11.7). Treatment-related adverse experiences (AEs) related to flushing, pruritis, rash, gastrointestinal upset and elevations in liver transaminases and fasting serum glucose occurred more frequently with ERN/LRPT added to statin vs. statin dose doubled. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ERN/LRPT to ongoing statin treatment produced significantly improved lipid-modifying benefits on LDL-C, HDL-C and TG and all other lipid parameters compared with doubling the statin dose in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. The types of AEs that occurred at a greater frequency in the ERN/LRPT group were those typically associated with niacin.

Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment.

BACKGROUND: We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin). RESULTS: Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.

Efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day in reduction of pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a 4-week, multinational, randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 60 mg/day in patients with established chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared with those of diclofenac 150 mg/day in a 4-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Four hundred and forty-six adult patients with CLBP (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Class 1 or 2) and with worsening pain upon discontinuation of pre-study analgesic medication were enrolled in the study. The study primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Low Back Pain Intensity Scale (LBP-IS) score over the 4-week treatment period. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included: changes in Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale (LBP-BS) scores. Early efficacy was assessed using PGART and LBP-IS scores 4 h after the first dose on the mornings of Days 1, 2 and 3. The overall safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 60 mg/day during 4 weeks of treatment were also assessed. RESULTS: The least-squares mean time-weighted change from baseline LBP-IS score over 4 weeks was -32.94 mm (95% CI -36.25, -29.63) for etoricoxib, indicating substantial efficacy in relief of pain. The treatment difference for the primary outcome was 2.51 mm (95% CI -1.50, 6.51), fulfilling the prespecified equivalence criterion of 95% confidence interval wholly within +/- 10 mm. Etoricoxib improved all secondary and other efficacy outcomes. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients with one or more clinical adverse events (AEs) (etoricoxib 35%, diclofenac 39%), or the proportion of patients who discontinued due to AEs (etoricoxib 7%, diclofenac 5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm that, for adult patients with CLBP, etoricoxib 60 mg once daily over 4 weeks is effective for relief of pain and improvement of physical function and comparable to high-dose diclofenac 150 mg daily.

Bowel colonization with resistant gram-negative bacilli after antimicrobial therapy of intra-abdominal infections: observations from two randomized comparative clinical trials of ertapenem therapy.

The selection of resistant gram-negative bacilli by broad-spectrum antibiotic use is a major issue in infection control. The aim of this comparative study was to assess the impact of different antimicrobial regimens commonly used to treat intra-abdominal infections on the susceptibility patterns of gram-negative bowel flora after completion of therapy. In two international randomized open-label trials with laboratory blinding, adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection requiring surgery received piperacillin-tazobactam (OASIS 1) or ceftriaxone/metronidazole (OASIS II) versus ertapenem for 4-14 days. Rectal swabs were obtained at baseline, end of therapy, and 2 weeks post-therapy. Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. were tested for production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the agent used were recovered from 19 of 156 (12.2%) piperacillin-tazobactam recipients at the end of therapy compared to 1 (0.6%) patient at baseline (p<0.001) in OASIS I, and from 33 of 193 (17.1%) ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipients at the end of therapy compared to 5 (2.6%) patients at baseline (p<0.001) in OASIS II. Ertapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae were recovered from 1 of 155 and 1 of 196 ertapenem recipients at the end of therapy versus 0 and 1 ertapenem recipients at baseline in OASIS I and II, respectively. Resistant Enterobacteriaceae emerged significantly less often during treatment with ertapenem than with the comparator in both OASIS I (p<0.001) and OASIS II (p<0.001). The prevalence of ESBL-producers increased significantly during therapy in OASIS II among 193 ceftriaxone/metronidazole recipients (from 4 [2.1%] to 18 [9.3%]) (p<0.001), whereas no ertapenem recipient was colonized with an ESBL-producer at the end of therapy in either study. Selection for imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa was uncommon in all treatment groups. In these studies, the frequency of bowel colonization with resistant Enterobacteriaceae substantially increased in patients treated with either piperacillin-tazobactam or ceftriaxone/metronidazole, but not in patients treated with ertapenem.

Absorption and disposition of levocetirizine, the eutomer of cetirizine, administered alone or as cetirizine to healthy volunteers.

The primary objective of the present study was to compare the absorption and disposition of levocetirizine, the eutomer of cetirizine, when administered alone (10 mg) or in presence of the distomer. An additional objective was also to investigate the configurational stability of levocetirizine in vivo in humans. The study was performed in a randomized, two-way cross-over, single-dose design with a wash-out phase of 7 days between the two periods. A total of 12 healthy male and 12 healthy female volunteers were included in the study. Bioequivalence can be concluded from the analysis of the pharmacokinetic parameters of levocetirizine when administered alone or as the racemate cetirizine. No chiral inversion occurs in humans when levocetirizine is administered, i.e. there is no formation of the distomer. When comparing the pharmacokinetic characteristics of levocetirizine and the distomer, the apparent volume of distribution of the eutomer is significantly smaller than that of the distomer (0.41 and 0.60 L/kg, respectively). For an H1-antagonist a small distribution volume can be considered as a positive aspect, both in terms of efficacy and safety. Moreover the non-renal clearance of levocetirizine is also significantly lower than that of the distomer (9.70 and 28.70 mL/min, respectively), which constitutes an additional positive aspect particularly as far as metabolism-based drug interactions are concerned. The information collected in the present study on the pharmacokinetics of levocetirizine and the distomer provide additional reasons for eliminating the distomer and developing levocetirizine as an improvement on cetirizine.