Single Ascending and Multiple-Dose Trial of Zerlasiran, a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis, with no pharmacological treatments approved by regulatory authorities. Objectives: To assess the safety and tolerability of zerlasiran, a short interfering RNA targeting hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), and effects on serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single- and multiple-dose study in healthy participants and patients with stable ASCVD, respectively, with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations greater than 150 nmol/L, conducted at 7 research sites in the US, the Netherlands, UK, and Australia between November 18, 2020, and February 8, 2023, with last follow-up on August 23, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive (1) a single subcutaneous dose of placebo (n = 8), zerlasiran 300 mg (n = 6) or 600 mg (n = 6); or (2) 2 doses of placebo (n = 9), zerlasiran 200 mg (n = 9) at a 4-week interval or 300 mg (n = 9) or 450 mg (n = 9) at an 8-week interval. Main Outcomes Measures: The primary outcome was safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included serum levels of zerlasiran and effects on lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations. Results: Among 37 patients in the multiple-dose group (mean age, 56 [SD, 10.4] years; 15 [42%] women), 36 completed the trial. Among 14 participants with extended follow-up after single doses, 13 completed the trial. There were no serious adverse events. Median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentrations in the multiple-dose group were 288 (IQR, 199-352) nmol/L. Median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration at 365 days after single doses were 14% (IQR, 13% to 15%) for the placebo group, -30% (IQR, -51% to -18%) for the 300 mg of zerlasiran group, and -29% (IQR, -39% to -7%) for the 600-mg dose group. After 2 doses, maximal median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration were 19 (IQR, -17 to 28) nmol/L for the placebo group, -258 (IQR, -289 to -188) nmol/L for the 200 mg of zerlasiran group, -310 (IQR, -368 to -274) nmol/L for the 300-mg dose group, and -242 (IQR, -343 to -182) nmol/L for the 450-mg dose group, with maximal median percent change of 7% (IQR, -4% to 21%), -97% (IQR, -98% to -95%), -98% (IQR, -99% to -97%), and -99% (IQR, -99% to -98%), respectively, attenuating to 0.3% (IQR, -2% to 21%), -60% (IQR, -71% to -40%), -90% (IQR, -91% to -74%), and -89% (IQR, -91% to -76%) 201 days after administration. Conclusions: Zerlasiran was well tolerated and reduced lipoprotein(a) concentrations with infrequent administration. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602.

Single Ascending Dose Study of a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a) Production in Individuals With Elevated Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an important risk factor for atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis, for which there are no treatments approved by regulatory authorities. Objectives: To assess adverse events and tolerability of a short interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to reduce hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) and to assess associated changes in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) at different doses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single ascending dose study of SLN360, an siRNA targeting apolipoprotein(a) synthesis conducted at 5 clinical research unit sites located in the US, United Kingdom, and Australia. The study enrolled adults with Lp(a) plasma concentrations of 150 nmol/L or greater at screening and no known clinically overt cardiovascular disease. Participants were enrolled between November 18, 2020, and July 21, 2021, with last follow-up on December 29, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive placebo (n = 8) or single doses of SLN360 at 30 mg (n = 6), 100 mg (n = 6), 300 mg (n = 6), or 600 mg (n = 6), administered subcutaneously. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included change in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) to a maximum follow-up of 150 days. Results: Among 32 participants who were randomized and received the study intervention (mean age, 50 [SD, 13.5] years; 17 women [53%]), 32 (100%) completed the trial. One participant experienced 2 serious adverse event episodes: admission to the hospital for headache following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and later for complications of cholecystitis, both of which were judged to be unrelated to study drug. Median baseline Lp(a) concentrations were as follows: placebo, 238 (IQR, 203-308) nmol/L; 30-mg SLN360, 171 (IQR, 142-219) nmol/L; 100-mg SLN360, 217 (IQR, 202-274) nmol/L; 300-mg SLN360, 285 (IQR, 195-338) nmol/L; and 600-mg SLN360, 231 (IQR, 179-276) nmol/L. Maximal median changes in Lp(a) were -20 (IQR, -61 to 3) nmol/L, -89 (IQR, -119 to -61) nmol/L, -185 (IQR, -226 to -163) nmol/L, -268 (IQR, -292 to -189) nmol/L, and -227 (IQR, -270 to -174) nmol/L, with maximal median percentage changes of -10% (IQR, -16% to 1%), -46% (IQR, -64% to -40%), -86% (IQR, -92% to -82%), -96% (IQR, -98% to -89%), and -98% (IQR, -98% to -97%), for the placebo group and the 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg SLN360 groups, respectively. The duration of Lp(a) lowering was dose dependent, persisting for at least 150 days after administration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 1 study of 32 participants with elevated Lp(a) levels and no known cardiovascular disease, the siRNA SLN360 was well tolerated, and a dose-dependent lowering of plasma Lp(a) concentrations was observed. The findings support further study to determine the safety and efficacy of this siRNA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-002471-35.

Design Features and Rationale of the BEAR-MOON (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network) Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: BEAR (bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] restoration), a paradigm-shifting technology to heal midsubstance ACL tears, has been demonstrated to be effective in a single-center 2:1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus hamstring ACL reconstruction. Widespread dissemination of BEAR into clinical practice should also be informed by a multicenter RCT to demonstrate exportability and compare efficacy with bone--patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction, another clinically standard treatment. PURPOSE: To present the design and initial preparation of a multicenter RCT of BEAR versus BPTB ACL reconstruction (the BEAR: Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network [BEAR-MOON] trial). Design and analytic issues in planning the complex BEAR-MOON trial, involving the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the US Food and Drug Administration, the BEAR implant manufacturer, a data and safety monitoring board, and institutional review boards, can usefully inform both clinicians on the trial's strengths and limitations and future investigators on planning of complex orthopaedic studies. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial. METHODS: We describe the distinctive clinical, methodological, and operational challenges of comparing the innovative BEAR procedure with the well-established BPTB operation, and we outline the clinical motivation, experimental setting, study design, surgical challenges, rehabilitation, outcome measures, and planned analysis of the BEAR-MOON trial. RESULTS: BEAR-MOON is a 6-center, 12-surgeon, 200-patient randomized, partially blinded, noninferiority RCT comparing BEAR with BPTB ACL reconstruction for treating first-time midsubstance ACL tears. Noninferiority of BEAR relative to BPTB will be claimed if the total score on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form and the knee arthrometer 30-lb (13.61-kg) side-to-side laxity difference are both within respective margins of 16 points for the IKDC and 2.5 mm for knee laxity. CONCLUSION: Major issues include patient selection, need for intraoperative randomization and treatment-specific postoperative physical therapy regimens (because of fundamental differences in surgical technique, initial stability construct, and healing), and choice of noninferiority margins for short-term efficacy outcomes of a novel intervention with evident short-term advantages and theoretical, but unverified, long-term benefits on other dimensions.