Efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful small fibre neuropathy (CONVEY): a phase 2 placebo-controlled enriched-enrolment randomised withdrawal study.

Background: No pharmacological treatments are specifically indicated for painful small fibre neuropathy (SFN). CONVEY, a phase 2 enriched-enrolment study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine, a voltage- and use-dependent sodium channel blocker, in participants with idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful SFN. Methods: CONVEY was a phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind (DB), enriched-enrolment, randomised withdrawal study. The study was conducted at 68 sites in 13 countries (Europe and Canada) between May 17, 2018, and April 12, 2021. Following a 4-week open-label period in which 265 adults with painful SFN (a mixture of large and small fibre neuropathy was not exclusionary) received oral vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily (BID), 123 participants (with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in average daily pain [ADP] score during the open-label period) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive 200 mg BID, 350 mg BID or placebo for a 12-week double-blind (DB) period. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP and the proportion of Patient Global Impression of Pain (PGIC) responders at DB Week 12. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were monitored. Statistical significance was set at 0.10 (2-sided). The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03339336) and on ClinicalTrialsregister.eu (2017-000991-27). Findings: A statistically significant difference from placebo in least squares mean reduction in ADP score from baseline to DB Week 12 was observed with vixotrigine 200 mg BID (-0.85; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.71 to 0.00; p = 0.050) but not 350 mg BID (-0.17; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.68; p = 0.70). Numerically, but not statistically significantly, more participants who received vixotrigine vs placebo experienced a ≥30% ADP reduction from baseline (68.3-72.5% vs 52.5%), and only the 350 mg BID group had significantly more PGIC responders vs placebo (48.8% vs 30.0%; odds ratio = 2.60; 95% CI, 0.97-6.99; p = 0.058) at DB Week 12. AEs were mostly mild to moderate in the vixotrigine groups. The most common AEs (≥5% of vixotrigine-treated participants) in the DB 200 mg BID and 350 mg BID vixotrigine groups were falls, nasopharyngitis, muscle spasm, and urinary tract infection. Interpretation: In our study, vixotrigine 200 mg BID, but not 350 mg BID, met the primary endpoint; more vixotrigine-treated participants experienced a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Vixotrigine (at both dosages) was well tolerated in participants with SFN. Funding: Biogen, Inc.

Evaluation of the Effect of Uridine Diphosphate-Glucuronosyltransferases (UGT) Inhibition by Valproic Acid on Vixotrigine Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Vixotrigine is a voltage-dependent and use-dependent sodium channel blocker in development for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Metabolism of vixotrigine is primarily through glucuronidation, resulting in the major M13 metabolite. Two additional major metabolites formed are M14 and M16. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of a uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase inhibitor, valproic acid, on vixotrigine pharmacokinetics. METHODS: This open-label, fixed-sequence, phase I study enrolled 30 healthy volunteers who received a single dose of vixotrigine 150 mg on day 1 and day 16 following an 8-h fast. On days 8-22, volunteers received valproic acid 500 mg three times daily. A mixed-effects model was used to analyze the effect of valproic acid on the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters of vixotrigine and its metabolites including maximum concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity. RESULTS: Vixotrigine systemic exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity) was increased by approximately 70% following the addition of valproic acid with a negligible effect on maximum concentration. Valproic acid administration also impacted vixotrigine metabolites: M13 exposure decreased by approximately 50% and M13 maximum concentration decreased by approximately 70%; increased exposure was noted for the M14 (approximately 100%) and M16 (approximately 70%) metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: Valproic acid, a uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase inhibitor, significantly increased vixotrigine systemic exposure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385525.

A Phase IIb Randomized Clinical Study of an Anti-αvß6 Monoclonal Antibody in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

Rationale: Treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are limited. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BG00011, an anti-αvß6 IgG1 monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of patients with IPF. Methods: In a phase IIb randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with IPF (FVC ⩾50% predicted, on or off background therapy) were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly subcutaneous BG00011 56 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was FVC change from baseline at Week 52. Because of early trial termination (imbalance in adverse events and lack of clinical benefit), endpoints were evaluated at Week 26 as an exploratory analysis. Measurements and Main Results: One hundred six patients were randomized and received at least one dose of BG00011 (n = 54) or placebo (n = 52). At Week 26, there was no significant difference in FVC change from baseline between patients who received BG00011 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 23), least squares mean (SE) -0.097 L (0.0600) versus -0.056 L (0.0593), respectively (P = 0.268). However, after Week 26, patients in the BG00011 group showed a worsening trend. Eight (44.4%) of 18 who received BG00011 and 4 (18.2%) of 22 who received placebo showed worsening of fibrosis on high-resolution computed tomography at the end of treatment. IPF exacerbation/or progression was reported in 13 patients (all in the BG00011 group). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in BG00011 patients, including four deaths. Conclusions: The results do not support the continued clinical development of BG00011. Further research is warranted to identify new treatment strategies that modify inflammatory and fibrotic pathways in IPF. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03573505).

An integrated analysis of safety and tolerability of etelcalcetide in patients receiving hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Calcimimetics have been shown to be effective and safe therapies for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT), a serious complication of disordered mineral metabolism associated with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease. Etelcalcetide, a recently approved intravenous calcimimetic, reduces serum parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, phosphorus, and fibroblast growth factor-23 concentrations. Here we report the first integrated safety profile of etelcalcetide using pooled data from five pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: This analysis included data from patients receiving hemodialysis with moderate to severe sHPT enrolled in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials; a randomized active-controlled (with cinacalcet) trial; and two single-arm, open-label extension trials. Patients initially received etelcalcetide intravenously 5 mg three times weekly (TIW) after hemodialysis; with potential dose increases of 2.5 or 5 mg at 4-week intervals to a maximum dose of 15 mg TIW, depending on serum PTH and calcium levels. The nature, frequency, and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, we evaluated 1023 patients from the placebo-controlled trials, 683 from the active-controlled trial, and 1299 from open-label extensions. The frequency and nature of common treatment-emergent AEs reported for the etelcalcetide arm were consistent among the placebo-controlled and active-controlled trials. The most common AEs were those related to mineral metabolism (decreased blood calcium, hypophosphatemia, muscle spasms) or gastrointestinal abnormalities (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting). Hypocalcemia leading to discontinuation of either calcimimetic was experienced in ≤ 1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This integrated safety assessment of etelcalcetide across placebo- and active-controlled trials showed an overall favorable risk/benefit profile, with safety similar to that of cinacalcet. Consistent with its mechanism of action, the most important risks associated with etelcalcetide were serum calcium reductions and hypocalcemia-related AEs; no new safety findings were identified in the pooled long-term extension trials.

Clinical immunogenicity of the d-amino acid peptide therapeutic etelcalcetide: Method development challenges and anti-drug antibody clinical impact assessments.

The immunogenicity risk assessment and bioanalytical strategy for novel therapeutics should account for both unique biophysical properties and potential consequences of immunogenicity. When assessing the immunogenicity risk of etelcalcetide, a peptide agonist of the calcium-sensing receptor, we considered the potential that the d-amino acid 'backbone' and biotransformation of etelcalcetide could allow the drug to act as a hapten. As a consequence, we validated and implemented a surface plasmon resonance immunoassay platform with both etelcalcetide and etelcalcetide-'carrier' surfaces to detect anti-drug antibodies (ADA). No evidence of in-vitro neutralizing activity with surrogate controls was detected despite multiple immunization approaches and a sensitive cell-based activity assay. Therefore, a neutralizing assay was not implemented for clinical support. We conducted an integrated analysis of immunogenicity data pooled from two pivotal placebo-controlled trials to define the clinical impact of anti-etelcalcetide antibodies. While both pre-existing and developing anti-etelcalcetide antibodies were detected, we show here that they have no consequences for clinical exposure, efficacy, or safety of etelcalcetide.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine 10 mg and 20 mg in adults with major depressive disorder.

CONTEXT: Vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) is an antidepressant with a mechanism of action thought to be related to a combination of 2 pharmacologic actions: direct modulation of several receptors and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg once daily in outpatients with major depressive disorder. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted from July 2010 to January 2012 among adults with a primary diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder (DSM-IV-TR). INTERVENTION: Eligible subjects were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment arms: vortioxetine 10 mg, vortioxetine 20 mg, or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. Subjects who completed the 8-week trial entered a 2-week blinded discontinuation period to assess potential discontinuation symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was the least squares mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline. Key secondary outcomes were analyzed in the following prespecified sequential order: MADRS response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline in total score), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score, change from baseline in MADRS total score in subjects with baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score ≥ 20, MADRS remission (total score ≤ 10), and change from baseline in Sheehan Disability Scale total score (all at week 8). RESULTS: A total of 462 subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 157), vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 155), and vortioxetine 20 mg (n = 150). Mean (SE) reductions from baseline in MADRS total score (week 8) were -10.77 (± 0.807), -12.96 (± 0.832), and -14.41 (± 0.845) for the placebo, vortioxetine 10 mg (P = .058 vs placebo), and vortioxetine 20 mg (P = .002 vs placebo) groups. MADRS response/remission was achieved in 28.4%/14.2%, 33.8%/21.4%, and 39.2%/22.3% of subjects, respectively, in the 3 groups. Only MADRS response for vortioxetine 20 mg significantly separated from placebo (P = .044). Treatment was well tolerated, with the most frequently reported adverse events consisting of nausea, headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine 20 mg significantly reduced MADRS total score at 8 weeks in this study population. Overall, vortioxetine was well tolerated in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01163266.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of vortioxetine in adults with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted August 2010-May 2012 in the United States, evaluated the safety and efficacy of vortioxetine 10 mg and 15 mg in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The mechanism of action of vortioxetine is thought to be related to direct modulation of serotonin (5-HT) receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. METHOD: Adults aged 18-75 years with MDD (DSM-IV-TR) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥ 26 were randomized (1:1:1) to receive vortioxetine 10 mg or 15 mg or placebo once daily, with the primary efficacy end point being change from baseline at week 8 in MADRS analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures. Adverse events were recorded during the study, suicidal ideation and behavior were assessed using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and sexual dysfunction was assessed using the Arizona Sexual Experience (ASEX) scale. RESULTS: Of the 1,111 subjects screened, 469 subjects were randomized: 160 to placebo, 157 to vortioxetine 10 mg, and 152 to vortioxetine 15 mg. Differences from placebo in the primary efficacy end point were not statistically significant for vortioxetine 10 mg or vortioxetine 15 mg. Nausea, headache, dry mouth, constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness, and flatulence were reported in ≥ 5% of subjects receiving vortioxetine. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 7 subjects (4.4%) in the placebo group, 8 (5.2%) in the vortioxetine 10 mg group, and 12 (7.9%) in the vortioxetine 15 mg group. ASEX total scores were similar across groups. There were no clinically significant trends within or between treatment groups on the C-SSRS, laboratory values, electrocardiogram, or vital sign parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, vortioxetine did not differ significantly from placebo on MADRS total score after 8 weeks of treatment in MDD subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179516.

Lack of effect of multiple doses of vortioxetine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aspirin and warfarin.

Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with multimodal activity approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Two separate randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluated the effects of multiple doses of vortioxetine (10 mg/day) on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aspirin and warfarin in healthy volunteers. In the aspirin study, subjects received vortioxetine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days, followed by coadministration with aspirin 150 mg once daily for 6 days, in 2 periods with a crossover design. In the warfarin study, subjects were randomized after reaching target international normalized ratio (INR) values on warfarin to receive vortioxetine 10 mg or matching placebo once daily for 14 days, with all subjects receiving a maintenance dose of warfarin (1-10 mg). Vortioxetine had no effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of aspirin or its metabolite salicylic acid, and no statistically significant effect on the inhibition of arachidonic acid-, adenosine-5'-diphosphate-, or collagen-induced platelet aggregation at any time points. Coadministration of vortioxetine did not alter the pharmacokinetics of (R)- and (S)-warfarin enantiomers, or the mean coagulation parameters of warfarin treatment alone. Coadministration of vortioxetine doses in healthy volunteers had no effect on aspirin or warfarin pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Vortioxetine was well tolerated when coadministered with aspirin or warfarin.

A randomized, double-blind, duloxetine-referenced study comparing efficacy and tolerability of 2 fixed doses of vortioxetine in the acute treatment of adults with MDD.

RATIONALE: Vortioxetine has reduced depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in multiple clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vortioxetine 15 and 20 mg vs placebo in adults with MDD. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to vortioxetine 15 mg, vortioxetine 20 mg, duloxetine 60 mg (active reference), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at week 8 (MMRM). Safety/tolerability assessments included physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory evaluations, electrocardiograms, adverse events (AEs), Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, and Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms checklist. RESULTS: Six hundred and fourteen patients were randomized. Mean changes in MADRS scores were -12.83 (±0.834), -14.30 (±0.890), -15.57 (±0.880), and -16.90 (±0.884) for placebo, vortioxetine 15 mg (P = .224), vortioxetine 20 mg (P = .023), and duloxetine 60 mg (P < .001) (P vs placebo), respectively. AEs reported by ≥5 % of vortioxetine patients included nausea, headache, diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, constipation, vomiting, insomnia, fatigue, and upper respiratory infection. Treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction, suicidal ideation or behavior, and discontinuation symptoms were not significantly different between vortioxetine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine 20 mg significantly reduced MADRS total scores after 8 weeks of treatment. Both vortioxetine doses were well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01153009; www.clinicaltrials.gov/ .

A randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine 2.5 and 10 mg in acute treatment of adults with generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Vortioxetine is a recently approved multimodal antidepressant with anxiolytic properties in preclinical studies. OBJECTIVE: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine in subjects with a primary diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. METHODS: Subjects (n = 457) were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with placebo or vortioxetine 2.5 or 10 mg once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) total scores from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. Key secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in HAM-A total scores for the 2.5 and 10 mg dose, Hospital Anxiety and Depression anxiety subscore, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale score, as well as HAM-A response rate at week 8. RESULTS: Neither vortioxetine dose achieved a statistically significant improvement over placebo on the primary endpoint (least-squares mean difference ± standard error from placebo: -0.87 ± 0.803 [p = 0.279] for 2.5 mg and -0.81 ± 0.791 [p = 0.306] for 10 mg vortioxetine) or on any secondary efficacy endpoints. Common adverse events (≥5% in either vortioxetine group) were nausea, dry mouth, headache, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine 2.5 and 10 mg treatment did not significantly improve generalized anxiety disorder symptoms versus placebo. Vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) in major depressive disorder: results of an open-label, flexible-dose, 52-week extension study.

Patients with major depressive disorder often experience relapse after responding to treatment; therefore, maintenance therapy with antidepressants is recommended for maintaining response or remission. This multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose, 52-week extension study evaluated the long-term safety, tolerability, and maintenance of efficacy in study participants who had completed one of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week dose-ranging vortioxetine trials in study participants with major depressive disorder. At the open-label baseline, all study participants were switched to vortioxetine 5 mg/day for the first week, with subsequent dose adjustments from 2.5 to 10 mg/day on the basis of response and tolerability. Treatment with vortioxetine for 52 weeks was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified. Among the 834 evaluable study participants, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 70.6%, with the most common in the combined (all doses) population of nausea (15.2%), headache (12.4%), nasopharyngitis (9.8%), diarrhea (7.2%), and dizziness (6.8%). The rate of adverse events related to sexual dysfunction was low and weight gain was minimal. Laboratory values, vital signs, ECGs, physical examinations, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale results showed no trends of clinical concern. The change in the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms was maintained throughout the study as reflected by a 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale total score of 8.2 at week 52 (from 17.6 at open-label baseline) in the observed case data set.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions involving vortioxetine (Lu AA21004), a multimodal antidepressant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The identification and quantification of potential drug-drug interactions is important for avoiding or minimizing the interaction-induced adverse events associated with specific drug combinations. Clinical studies in healthy subjects were performed to evaluate potential pharmacokinetic interactions between vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) and co-administered agents, including fluconazole (cytochrome P450 [CYP] 2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP3A inhibitor), ketoconazole (CYP3A and P-glycoprotein inhibitor), rifampicin (CYP inducer), bupropion (CYP2D6 inhibitor and CYP2B6 substrate), ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel (CYP3A substrates) and omeprazole (CYP2C19 substrate and inhibitor). METHODS: The ratio of central values of the test treatment to the reference treatment for relevant parameters (e.g., area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum plasma concentration [C max]) was used to assess pharmacokinetic interactions. RESULTS: Co-administration of vortioxetine had no effect on the AUC or C max of ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel or 5'-hydroxyomeprazole, or the AUC of bupropion; the 90 % confidence intervals for these ratios of central values were within 80-125 %. Steady-state AUC and C max of vortioxetine increased when co-administered with bupropion (128 and 114 %, respectively), fluconazole (46 and 15 %, respectively) and ketoconazole (30 and 26 %, respectively), and decreased by 72 and 51 %, respectively, when vortioxetine was co-administered with rifampicin. Concomitant therapy was generally well tolerated; most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSION: Dosage adjustment may be required when vortioxetine is co-administered with bupropion or rifampicin.

Effect of Vortioxetine on Cardiac Repolarization in Healthy Adult Male Subjects: Results of a Thorough QT/QTc Study.

This double-blind, randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the effect of vortioxetine (Lu AA21004), an investigational multimodal antidepressant, on QT interval in accordance with current guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH-E14). A total of 340 healthy men were randomized to receive 1 of 4 treatments for 14 days: (1) vortioxetine 10 mg once daily (QD), (2) vortioxetine 40 mg QD, (3) placebo QD, or (4) placebo QD on Days 1 through 13 followed by a single dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control). The primary endpoint was the largest time-matched, baseline-adjusted least-squares (LS) mean difference for the individual-corrected QT interval (QTcNi [linear]) between vortioxetine and placebo. Alternative QT correction formulas (i.e., Fredericia [QTcF], Bazett [QTcB], Framingham [QTcFm], and QTcNi [nonlinear]) were used as secondary endpoints. The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval around the LS mean difference from placebo for baseline-adjusted QTcNi (linear), QTcF, QTcB, QTcFm, and QTcNi (nonlinear) did not exceed 10 ms at any time point after multiple doses of vortioxetine 10 mg (therapeutic) or 40 mg (supratherapeutic). Overall, the study results indicate that vortioxetine is unlikely to affect cardiac repolarization in healthy subjects.