Safe and Effective Subcutaneous Self-Injection of Bimekizumab with Safety Syringe and Auto-Injector Devices: Results from a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

Purpose: Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, key drivers of chronic inflammation. Bimekizumab must be injected subcutaneously and so patients require self-injection options that meet their preferences. This study evaluated safe and effective self-injection of bimekizumab by patients with psoriatic arthritis using the 1 mL safety syringe (SSy) or the 1 mL auto-injector (AI). Patients and Methods: The DV0004 devices study (NCT04109976) was a sub-study of BE VITAL, a multicenter, open-label extension of BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. After receiving training, patients subcutaneously self-injected bimekizumab 160 mg at Baseline and Week 4. The primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients self-injecting bimekizumab safely and effectively at Week 4 and Baseline, respectively. Patient self-injection experience was evaluated using the pain visual analog scale (VAS) and the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ). Results: Overall, 214 patients were randomized 1:1 at Baseline. All evaluable patients safely and effectively self-injected bimekizumab at Week 4 (SSy: n=105; AI: n=104) and Baseline (SSy: n=106; AI: n=106). Mean pain VAS scores were generally low at Week 4 (SSy: 11.0; AI: 11.4) and Baseline (SSy: 9.5; AI: 14.9). High mean pre- and post-injection SIAQ scores (≥6.7) were observed for both devices indicating a positive overall patient experience with self-injection. Self-injection was well tolerated with no reports of treatment-emergent adverse device effects (TEADEs), serious TEADEs or discontinuations due to TEADEs. Four non-device-related injection site reactions during the sub-study were reported in the parent study; all were mild, did not lead to discontinuation and resolved without treatment. All devices maintained their structural and functional integrity post-use. Conclusion: All patients self-injected subcutaneous bimekizumab safely and effectively using either device at Baseline and Week 4. Overall, patients reported a positive self-injection experience.

Bimekizumab Self-Injection Devices: Two Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Studies on Self-Administration by Patients With Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A. OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' ability to self-inject bimekizumab subcutaneously using a 1 mL safety syringe or auto-injector. METHODS: DV0002 and DV0006 were sub-studies of BE BRIGHT, a multicenter, phase 3 open-label extension study. Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis received bimekizumab 320 mg (2x160 mg injections) every 4 or 8 weeks and were randomized 1:1 to the safety syringe or the auto-injector. The ability of patients to safely and effectively self-inject bimekizumab was assessed at 8 weeks (primary endpoint) and immediately after self-injection training at Baseline (secondary endpoint). Patient experience was evaluated using the pain visual analog scale (VAS; 0–100 mm; 100 being worst pain), and the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ; 0–10; 10 being most positive experience). RESULTS: All evaluable patients in DV0002 (n=125) and DV0006 (n=86) safely and effectively self-injected bimekizumab at Week 8. All evaluable patients in DV0002 who used the safety syringe (n=64) and 97.1% (n=66/68) who used the auto-injector, as well as all evaluable DV0006 patients (n=88) also self-injected bimekizumab safely and effectively at Baseline. Median VAS scores were low (range: 7.0–20.0), and median pre-injection and post-injection SIAQ scores were high (range: 5.8–10.0 and 7.1–10.0, respectively) across both devices, sub-studies, and timepoints. CONCLUSIONS: Both devices provide a safe and effective option for patients to self-administer bimekizumab. Furthermore, patients reported a positive self-injection experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03766685 J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(2):162-171. doi:10.36849/JDD.6274THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

A multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safe and effective use of a new electromechanical auto-injection device for self-injection of certolizumab pegol.

BACKGROUND: ava® is a new reusable electromechanical auto-injector (e-Device) with disposable, single-use certolizumab pegol (CZP) dispensing cartridges. METHODS: RA0098 (NCT03357471) was a US, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study designed to assess whether the e-Device can be used safely and effectively by self-injecting patients. CZP pre-filled syringe (PFS) self-injecting patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, and Crohn's disease received training and self-injected CZP using the e-Device at 2 visits. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients able to self-inject safely and effectively at Visit 2, defined as: 1) complete dose delivery, and 2) no adverse events related to the e-Device precluding its continued use. RESULTS: 65/67 patients (97.0%) completed the study, 64/65 (98.5%) performed safe and effective self-injection at Visit 2, and 67/67 (100%) performed safe and effective self-injection at Visit 1. Patient satisfaction and self-confidence increased over the two visits. Overall, patients reported a preference for the e-Device (58/65; 89.2%) compared to a PFS (4/65; 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were able to safely and effectively self-inject CZP using the e-Device and most preferred ava® over a PFS. No safety-related findings impacting the benefit-risk ratio of CZP were identified.

Clinical feasibility of a wearable, conformable sensor patch to monitor motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical assessment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) is subjective and may not reflect patient real-world experience. This two-part pilot study evaluated the accuracy of the NIMBLE wearable biosensor patch (containing an accelerometer and electromyography sensor) to record body movements in clinic and home environments versus clinical measurement of motor symptoms. METHODS: Patients (Hoehn & Yahr 2-3) had motor symptom fluctuations and were on a stable levodopa dose. Part 1 investigated different sensor body locations (six patients). In Part 2, 21 patients wore four sensors (chest, and most affected side of shin, forearm and back-of-hand) during a 2-day clinic- and 1-day home-based evaluation. Patients underwent Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale assessments on days 1-2, and performed pre-defined motor activities at home on day 3. An algorithm estimated motor-symptom severity (predicted scores) using patch data (in-clinic); this was compared with in-clinic motor symptom assessments (observed scores). RESULTS: The overall correlation coefficient between in-clinic observed and sensor algorithm-predicted scores was 0.471 (p = 0.031). Predicted and observed scores were identical 45% of the time, with a predicted score within a ±1 range 91% of the time. Exact accuracy for each activity varied, ranging from 32% (pronation/supination) to 67% (rest-tremor-amplitude). Patients rated the patch easy-to-use and as providing valuable data for managing PD symptoms. Overall patch-adhesion success was 97.2%. The patch was safe and generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a correlation between sensor algorithm-predicted and clinician-observed motor-symptom scores. Algorithm refinement using patient populations with greater symptom-severity range may potentially improve the correlation.

A randomized study comparing outcomes of stapled and hand-sutured anastomoses in patients undergoing open gastrointestinal surgery.

Although stapling is an alternative to hand-suturing in gastrointestinal surgery, recent trials specifically designed to evaluate differences between the two in surgery time, anastomosis time, and return to bowel activity are lacking. This trial compared the outcomes of the two in subjects undergoing open gastrointestinal surgery. Adult subjects undergoing emergency or elective surgery requiring a single gastric, small, or large bowel anastomosis were enrolled into this open-label, prospective, randomized, interventional, parallel, multicenter, controlled trial. Randomization was assigned in a 1:1 ratio between the hand-sutured group (n = 138) and the stapled group (n = 142). Anastomosis time, surgery time, and time to bowel activity were collected and compared as primary endpoints. A total of 280 subjects were enrolled from April 2009 to September 2010. Only the time of anastomosis was significantly different between the two arms: 17.6 ± 1.90 min (stapled) and 20.6 ± 1.90 min (hand-sutured). This difference was deemed not clinically or economically meaningful. Safety outcomes and other secondary endpoints were similar between the two arms. Mechanical stapling is faster than hand-suturing for the construction of gastrointestinal anastomoses. Apart from this, stapling and hand-suturing are similar with respect to the outcomes measured in this trial.

Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.

Design of the SHock Inhibition Evaluation with Azimilide (SHIELD) study: a novel method to assess antiarrhythmic drug effect in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

This report presents the rationale and study design details of the SHock Inhibition Evaluation with Azimilide study, which is recruiting 624 patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) who are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia, randomized to azimilide 75 mg, azimilide 125 mg, or placebo and followed for 1 year. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of azimilide versus placebo on the symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia burden using a unique statistical analysis based on the unusual temporal distribution of symptomatic ICD therapies. The primary efficacy end points are time to all-cause shocks and time to all-cause shocks plus symptomatic ventricular arrhythmic events triggering antitachycardia pacing measured from randomization.

Placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of azimilide for prevention of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Although implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) effectively treat sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, up to 50% of ICD recipients eventually require concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy to prevent symptomatic arrhythmia recurrences and hence reduce the number of device therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 633 ICD recipients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of daily doses of 75 or 125 mg of azimilide on recurrent symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmias and ICD therapies. Total all-cause shocks plus symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT) terminated by antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were significantly reduced by azimilide, with relative risk reductions of 57% (hazard ratio [HR]=0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.69, P=0.0006) and 47% (HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83, P=0.0053) at 75- and 125-mg doses, respectively. The reductions in all-cause shocks with both doses of azimilide did not achieve statistical significance. The incidence of all appropriate ICD therapies (shocks or ATP-terminated VT) was reduced significantly among patients taking 75 mg of azimilide (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.89, P=0.017) and those taking 125 mg of azimilide (HR=0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.65, P=0.0004). Five patients in the azimilide groups and 1 patient in the placebo group had torsade de pointes; all were successfully treated by the device. One patient taking 75 mg of azimilide had severe but reversible neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Azimilide significantly reduced the recurrence of VT or ventricular fibrillation terminated by shocks or ATP in ICD patients, thereby reducing the burden of symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmia.