A phase 2b double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of SB-061, an aggrecan mimetic, in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injections of a novel aggrecan mimetic, SB-061, in subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II study comparing intra-articular injections of SB-061 with placebo (isotonic saline) for 52 weeks, administered at baseline, Wk 16, and Wk 32. Eligible subjects had a KL grade of 2 or 3 on X-ray of the target knee and a Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score ≥20 out of 50 at screening and baseline visits. Subjects having any other knee condition were excluded. Use of analgesics was prohibited, except for rescue medication. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in WOMAC pain at Week 8. Secondary endpoints were CFB in WOMAC function and total, ICOAP, Patient Global Assessment, and 20-meter walk test. Exploratory endpoints included structural CFB in magnetic resonance imaging entities. RESULTS: A total of 288 subjects were randomized to SB-061 (n = 145) or placebo (n = 143), and 252 (87.5%) completed injections. The groups were comparable at baseline. The primary endpoint was not met, as no significant difference in the CFB of the WOMAC pain score at Week 8 between groups was observed, nor at any other time point during the study. Similarly, neither of the secondary or exploratory endpoints indicated any significant difference between groups. The frequency and type of adverse events were similar between groups. SB-061 was well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular injections of SB-061 administered at baseline, Week 16, and Week 32, over one year in subjects with knee OA, were safe but did not show any statistically significant effect on knee pain nor on other symptomatic or structural entities compared to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER EUDRACT NO: 2019-004515-31.

Localized inhibition of platelets and platelet derived growth factor by a matrix targeted glycan mimetic significantly attenuates liver fibrosis.

New therapeutic strategies are needed for the growing unmet clinical needs in liver disease and fibrosis. Platelet activation and PDGF activity are recognized as important therapeutic targets; however, no therapeutic approach has yet addressed these two upstream drivers of liver fibrosis. We therefore designed a matrix-targeting glycan therapeutic, SBR-294, to inhibit collagen-mediated platelet activation while also inhibiting PDGF activity. Herein we describe the synthesis and characterization of SBR-294 and demonstrate its potential therapeutic benefits in vitro and in vivo. In vitro SBR-294 was found to bind collagen (EC50 = 23 nM), thereby inhibiting platelet-collagen engagement (IC50 = 60 nM). Additionally, SBR-294 was found to bind all PDGF homodimeric isoforms and to inhibit PDGF-BB mediated hepatic stellate cell activation and proliferation. Translating these mechanisms in vivo, SBR-294 reduced fibrosis by up to 54% in the CCl4 mouse model (p = 0.0004), as measured by Sirius red histological analysis. Additional fibrosis measurements were also supportive of the therapeutic benefit in this model. These results support the therapeutic benefit of platelet and PDGF antagonism and warrant further investigation of SBR-294 as a potential treatment for liver fibrosis.

Development and validation of a 6-point grading scale in patients undergoing correction of nasolabial folds with a collagen implant.

BACKGROUND: Various scoring techniques prone to subjective interpretation have been used to evaluate soft tissue augmentation of nasolabial folds (NLFs). OBJECTIVE: To design and validate a reliable wrinkle assessment scoring scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six photographed wrinkles of varying severity were electronically copied onto the same facial image to become a 6-point grading scale (GGS). A pilot training program (13 investigators) determined reliability, and a 12-week multicenter survey study validated the GGS scoring method. RESULTS: Pilot study inter- and intrarater scoring reliability were high (weighted kappa scores of 0.85 and 0.86, respectively). Seventy-five percent of survey investigators and independent review panel (IRP) members considered a GGS score difference of 0.5 to be a minimally perceivable difference. Interrater weighted kappa scores were 0.91 for the IRP and 0.80 for investigators. Intrarater agreements after repeat testing were 0.91 and 0.89, respectively. The baseline "live" assessment GGS mean score was 3.34, and the baseline blinded photographic assessment GGS mean score was 2.00 for the IRP and 2.16 for the investigators. CONCLUSIONS: The GGS is a reproducible method of grading the severity of NLF wrinkles. Treatment effectiveness of a dermal filler can be reliably evaluated using the GGS by comparing "live" assessments with the standard GGS photographic panel.

Novel hyaluronic acid dermal filler: dermal gel extra physical properties and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Dermal gel extra (DGE) is a new, tightly cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA)-based dermal filler containing lidocaine engineered to resist gel deformation and degradation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a firmer gel product (DGE) and compare the efficacy and safety of DGE with nonanimal stabilized HA (NASHA) for correction of nasolabial folds (NLFs). METHODS: DGE physical properties were characterized, and 140 subjects with moderate to deep NLFs were treated with DGE and NASHA in a randomized, multicenter, split-face design study. Efficacy, pain, and satisfaction were measured using appropriate standard instruments. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: DGE has a higher modulus and a higher gel:fluid ratio than other HA fillers. Similar optimal correction was observed with DGE and NASHA through 36 weeks (9 months). Study subjects required less volume (p<.001) and fewer touch-ups (p=.005) and reported less injection pain (p<.001) with DGE treatment. Most adverse events were mild to moderate skin reactions. CONCLUSIONS: DGE is a firm HA gel that required significantly less volume and fewer touch-ups to provide equivalent efficacy to NASHA for NLF correction; both dermal gels were well tolerated. DGE will provide a comfortable and cost-effective dermal filler option for clinicians and patients.

Reduced pain with use of proprietary hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of nasolabial folds: a patient-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain during and after implantation of dermal gel fillers is a consistent complaint of patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation. Reduction of pain during injection would increase patient comfort and improve the overall patient experience. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pain at the injection site during and after the injection of Prevelle SILK or Captique and to evaluate outcomes after 2 weeks. METHODS & MATERIALS: In a patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, split-face design trial, a non-animal-derived hyaluronic acid based filler formulated with lidocaine (Prevelle SILK) was injected in one nasolabial fold (NLF), and the same filler without lidocaine (Captique) was injected in the contralateral NLF of 45 enrolled patients. Injection site pain was measured using a visual analogue scale at injection (time 0) and 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after injection. Patients were asked to return for an evaluation after 2 weeks and to complete a self-assessment questionnaire during the follow-up visit. RESULTS: There was more than 50% less pain associated with the dermal gel with lidocaine than with the same filler without lidocaine at all time points (p<.05). The greatest difference in pain was recorded at the time of injection, and then the effect gradually declined over the 60-minute period. Both fillers were well tolerated, and there was no difference in outcome after 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: Addition of lidocaine to a filler resulted in significantly less pain associated with the procedure without compromising outcomes.