NRD.E1, an innovative non-opioid therapy for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy-A randomized proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) affects up to 26% of patients with diabetes mellitus, with major impacts on their general health and well-being. Most available drugs fail to deliver acceptable pain reduction in the majority of patients and are often poorly tolerated. NRD.E1 is a novel product that has shown anti-nociceptive preclinical effects and good tolerability in healthy volunteer studies. METHODS: This phase 2a, randomized, dose-finding, Proof of Concept study enrolled patients with PDPN of ≥3 months duration. After at least one treatment-free week (WO week), 88 patients entered a 1-week single-blind (SB)-placebo run-in period, followed by 3 weeks' double-blind (DB) treatment, during which they received NRD.E1 at 10, 40 or 150 mg/day or placebo. RESULTS: The primary endpoint (change from SB-placebo run-in week to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average numerical rating scale [NRS] pain intensity) showed clinically relevant placebo-corrected treatment effect pain reductions at 40 mg and 150 mg/day of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.58, p = 0.034) and 0.66 (95% CI: -0.03, 1.35; p = 0.061) NRS points, respectively, though did not meet the pre-specified value of p = 0.016 required due to multiplicity. An additional post hoc endpoint looking at the change from WO baseline to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average NRS showed the placebo-corrected treatment effect was 1.46 (95% CI: 0.26, 2.66), and 1.20 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.29) NRS points, respectively. Secondary and post hoc analyses of NRS pain data (including 30 & 50% responder rate and NNT), sleep interference, Short-form McGill pain questionnaire (especially pain intensity assessed on Visual Analogue Scale), Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Change showed effects consistent with the primary findings. NRD.E1 was well tolerated, with only headache reported in more than two patients and more frequently on NRD.E1 than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that NRD.E1 potentially represents a novel non-opioid therapeutic option for patients with PDPN, with at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than available therapies, justifying its further evaluation in larger-scale confirmatory studies. SIGNIFICANCE: NRD.E1 is a novel non-opioid therapeutic which is being developed for the treatment of PDPN. In this randomized, controlled, dose-finding, Proof of Concept study, NRD.E1 induced a clinically relevant pain reduction and it was well tolerated. Available data suggest that NRD.E1 has at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than the currently available therapies, potentially offering a promising new therapeutic option to patients with PDPN and possibly other neuropathic pain indications.

First-in-Human Single-Ascending-Dose, Multiple-Dose, and Food Interaction Studies of NRD.E1, an Innovative Nonopioid Therapy for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy is characterized by burning, stabbing, or electric shock-type pain, which severely impacts day-to-day functioning and quality of life. Here, we report the results of 3 phase I studies with NRD135S.E1 (referred to as NRD.E1), a new, orally available chemical entity, presently developed for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The first study was a first-in-human, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study, where NRD.E1 was administered to healthy male subjects in single dosages ranging from 300 to 1200 mg. The second study was a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple-dose study, where healthy male subjects received 300 mg of NRD.E1 once daily for 5 consecutive days. The third study was an open-label food interaction study in healthy men and women following a crossover design, where NRD.E1 was administered under fed and fasted conditions at 40 mg. The studies revealed dose-dependent absorption, increased exposure to NRD.E1 when administered with food, and no relevant accumulation after once-daily administration. All 3 phase I studies consistently showed rapid absorption of orally administered NRD.E1 followed by fast elimination, mainly via metabolization (glucuronidation), and small secondary increases in plasma concentrations. NRD.E1 was well tolerated, with no subject discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events in any study.

Efficacy and safety of almorexant in adult chronic insomnia: a randomized placebo-controlled trial with an active reference.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The orally active dual OX1R and OX2R antagonist, almorexant, targets the orexin system for the treatment of primary insomnia. This clinical trial assessed the effect of almorexant on sleep maintenance and other sleep endpoints, and its safety and tolerability in adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active referenced trial in male and female adults aged 18-64 years with chronic, primary insomnia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, almorexant 100 mg, almorexant 200 mg, or zolpidem 10 mg (active reference) for 16 days. Primary efficacy assessments were objective (polysomnography-measured) and subjective (patient-recorded) wake time after sleep onset (WASO). Further sleep variables were also evaluated. RESULTS: From 709 randomized patients, 707 (mean age 45.4 years; 61.7% female) received treatment and 663 (93.8%) completed the study. A significant decrease versus placebo in median objective WASO was observed with almorexant 200 mg at the start and end of randomized treatment (-26.8 min and -19.5 min, respectively; both p < 0.0001); subjective WASO also decreased over the two-week treatment period (p = 0.0006). Objective and subjective total sleep time (TST) were increased with almorexant 200 mg (p < 0.0001). Almorexant 200 mg significantly reduced objective and subjective latency to persistent sleep and latency to sleep onset at initiation of therapy, and provided longer duration of sleep stages with no suppression of slow-wave sleep. No impaired next-day performance, rebound insomnia, or withdrawal effects were observed. Adverse events were similar with almorexant and placebo. CONCLUSION: Almorexant reduced time to sleep onset and maintained sleep without residual effects on next-day performance or safety concerns. This study provides further support for the role of the endogenous orexin system in insomnia disorder. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT00608985.

Efficacy and safety of setipiprant in seasonal allergic rhinitis: results from Phase 2 and Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-referenced studies.

BACKGROUND: Antagonism of chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule on T-helper type-2 cells (CRTH2), a G-protein coupled receptor for prostaglandin D2, could be beneficial for treating allergic disorders. We present findings on the efficacy and safety/tolerability of a CRTH2 antagonist (setipiprant) in participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) in a real-life setting over 2 weeks. METHODS: A Phase 2 trial and a Phase 3 trial were conducted at seven centers in Texas, USA during the Mountain Cedar pollen season. Both were prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-referenced (cetirizine) studies. The Phase 2 trial assessed setipiprant 100-1000 mg b.i.d. and 1000 mg o.d. versus placebo in adult and elderly participants. The Phase 3 trial assessed setipiprant 1000 mg b.i.d. in adolescent, adult, and elderly participants. Efficacy was assessed using daytime nasal symptom scores (DNSS), night-time nasal symptom scores (NNSS) and daytime eye symptom scores (DESS). RESULTS: 579 participants were randomized in the Phase 2 trial (mean age 41.6-43.4 years); 630 were randomized in the Phase 3 trial (mean age 37.5-40.7 years). A statistically significant, dose-related improvement in mean change from baseline DNSS was observed over 2 weeks with setipiprant 1000 mg b.i.d. versus placebo in the Phase 2 trial (-0.15 [95% CI -0.29, -0.01]; p = 0.030). Setipiprant 1000 mg b.i.d. had no significant effect on this endpoint in the Phase 3 trial (-0.02 [95% CI -0.12, 0.07]; p = 0.652). Total and individual NNSS and DESS symptom scores were significantly improved with setipiprant 1000 mg b.i.d. versus placebo in the Phase 2 but not the Phase 3 trial. Setipiprant showed a favorable safety/tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS: The Phase 2 trial was the first large clinical study to assess a CRTH2 antagonist in seasonal AR in a real-life setting. Setipiprant dose-related efficacy in the Phase 2 trial was not confirmed during Phase 3. Setipiprant was well tolerated in both studies. Trial registration NCT01241214 and NCT01484119.

Protein microarray platform for the multiplex analysis of biomarkers in human sera.

Many biomarkers are currently used to monitor patients in clinical studies. Technologies which evaluate, validate and monitor biomarkers in a cost effective and efficient manner are a necessity. Here we describe the development, validation and implementation of a protein microarray platform for the quantitative and simultaneous analysis of six proteins: IL-1beta, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1 and TNFalpha. The platform utilizes a 96-well plate as a solid support on which antibodies are immobilized using non-contact piezoelectric printing. The reaction is based on a sandwich ELISA and the signal is quantified by chemiluminescence with a CCD camera. The robustness and reproducibility of the methodology was investigated using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory guidelines for pharmacokinetic assay validation, in which a spike-recovery validation test was elaborated and run over 3 days. The method was shown to be both quantitative and reproducible, with assay accuracy between 70% and 130%, and an assay precision of less than 30%. In addition, protein microarray performance was compared with the classical ELISA approach. Sera collected from a total of 78 individuals were assayed using both approaches. Correlation coefficients (R2) between the two technologies were calculated for each of the analytes: 0.90 for IL-1beta, 0.60 for IL-1ra, 0.93 for IL-6, 0.96 for IL-8, 0.94 for MCP-1 and 0.95 for TNFalpha. The results obtained demonstrate the applicability of this protein microarray for quantitative and simultaneous analysis of IL-1beta, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1 and TNFalpha in clinical samples.

Prevalence of KIT expression in human tumors.

PURPOSE: KIT is a target for imatinib mesylate (Gleevec; Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland). Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) express KIT and respond favorably to imatinib therapy. To determine other tumors in which such a molecular targeted therapy might be indicated, we investigated KIT expression in different human tumor types. Because recent studies in GISTs suggest that KIT-activating mutations predict response to imatinib therapy, we also sequenced a subset of positive tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: More than 3,000 tumors from more than 120 different tumor categories were analyzed by immunohistochemistry in a tissue microarray format. Seven commercially available anti-KIT antibodies were initially evaluated. The antibody A4502 (DAKO) was selected for analysis because of a high frequency of positivity in GIST and low staining background in other tissues. To determine the frequency of KIT mutations in various tumor types, the exons 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 17 (where mutations previously were reported) were sequenced in 36 tumors with strong KIT expression. RESULTS: KIT positivity was detected in 28 of 28 GISTs (100%), 42 of 50 seminomas (84%), 34 of 52 adenoid-cystic carcinomas (65%), 14 of 39 malignant melanomas (35%), and eight of 47 large-cell carcinomas of the lung (17%), as well as in 47 additional tumor types. KIT mutations were found in six of 12 analyzed GISTs, but only in one of 24 other tumors. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that KIT expression occurs infrequently in most tumor types and that, with the exception of GISTs, KIT gene mutations are rare in immunohistochemically KIT-positive tumors.