Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) ; 13(10): 2279-2297, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37731086

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP). METHODS: This phase IIb trial comprised a loading dose period to week (W) 4, then maintenance dosing to W52. Patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:2 to subcutaneous spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 600 mg every 4 weeks (q4w), spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 300 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4 then 600 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4, 300 mg q4w to W16 then 300 mg every 8 weeks (q8w), or placebo switching to spesolimab 600 mg q4w at W16. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline in Palmoplantar Pustular Area and Severity Index (PPP ASI) at W16. Secondary endpoints included a Palmoplantar Pustular Physician's Global Assessment (PPP PGA) score of 0/1. Safety (including adverse events [AEs], local tolerability) was assessed. RESULTS: 152 patients were treated. The primary endpoint was not met; mean differences for spesolimab versus placebo ranged from - 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 31.5%, 2.2%) to - 5.3% (95% CI: - 19.1%, 8.6%); none reached significance. At W16, 23 (21.1%) and two (4.7%) patients in the combined spesolimab and placebo groups, respectively, achieved PPP PGA 0/1 (mean difference 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.8%, 25.7%), increasing to 59 (54.1%; combined spesolimab) and 12 (27.9%; placebo switch to spesolimab) patients at W52. Non-Asian patients had significant improvements in the primary endpoint (mean difference - 17.7%; nominal P = 0.0394) and PPP PGA 0/1 at W16 with spesolimab versus placebo. Rates of AEs and AE-related discontinuations were similar for spesolimab and placebo. Local tolerability events and injection-site reactions were more frequent with spesolimab than placebo. CONCLUSION: The primary objective to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response relationship and proof-of-concept was not achieved; improvements with spesolimab occurred in secondary endpoints and in non-Asian patients, indicating potential modest benefits. Spesolimab was generally well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04015518).


A clinical trial of spesolimab for patients with palmoplantar pustulosis. Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a painful, difficult-to-treat skin disease that is found on patients' palms and the soles of their feet. In this clinical trial, we studied an injected medicine called spesolimab for treating patients with PPP. Patients were split into five groups; four groups received different doses of spesolimab and one received placebo (an injection without spesolimab). After 16 weeks, patients receiving placebo switched to spesolimab. We measured the body area affected by PPP and how severe PPP was at week 16. Patients' doctors also assessed skin affected by PPP. At 16 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between spesolimab and placebo in terms of the PPP-affected area and severity. However, more patients had clear or almost clear skin with spesolimab than placebo. Among non-Asian patients, more showed an improvement in their PPP with spesolimab than with placebo; this was not the case with Asian patients. Patients taking spesolimab or placebo reported side effects, of which the most common were colds, aches and headaches. More patients receiving spesolimab reported a reaction at the injection site compared with placebo. We monitored patients for up to 1 year, and results remained similar. We showed that spesolimab may have a modest effect on the body area affected by PPP, as well as the severity of PPP, and did not seem to cause more side effects than placebo, except for reactions at the injection site.

2.
Pharm Stat ; 22(2): 349-364, 2023 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36418025

RESUMO

Unblinded sample size re-estimation (SSR) is often planned in a clinical trial when there is large uncertainty about the true treatment effect. For Proof-of Concept (PoC) in a Phase II dose finding study, contrast test can be adopted to leverage information from all treatment groups. In this article, we propose two-stage SSR designs using frequentist conditional power (CP) and Bayesian predictive power (PP) for both single and multiple contrast tests. The Bayesian SSR can be implemented under a wide range of prior settings to incorporate different prior knowledge. Taking the adaptivity into account, all type I errors of final analysis in this paper are rigorously protected. Simulation studies are carried out to demonstrate the advantages of unblinded SSR in multi-arm trials.


Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa , Humanos , Tamanho da Amostra , Teorema de Bayes , Simulação por Computador , Incerteza
4.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 23(2): 642-647, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33074590

RESUMO

This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in 206 Chinese patients with inadequately controlled (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5%-10.0%) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving insulin (basal or premixed) ± metformin. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg/d or placebo. The decrease from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint) was greater with linagliptin than with placebo (-0.61% vs. -0.20%, adjusted mean difference -0.40%; P = 0.0016). Linagliptin demonstrated significantly greater improvement in 2-hour postprandial glucose (-1.77 mmol/L [-31.95 mg/dL]; P < 0.001), and a numerical reduction in fasting plasma glucose (-0.34 mmol/L [-6.2 mg/dL]; P = 0.2241) versus placebo. Proportionally more patients on linagliptin achieved a HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% versus those on placebo (odds ratio 2.293, P < 0.01). Adverse events in both groups were similar, with no new safety findings or clinically relevant changes in body weight. Among investigator-defined hypoglycaemic events (linagliptin: 17.3%; placebo: 12.7%; odds ratio 1.48, P = 0.337), none were severe. In Chinese patients with T2DM, linagliptin add-on to insulin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Linagliptina , Glicemia , China , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Método Duplo-Cego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Linagliptina/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Diabetes Ther ; 11(6): 1317-1330, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32328953

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines suggest a glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of ≤ 6.5% for type 2 diabetes patients with short duration of disease, few comorbidities and/or long life expectancy-provided this goal can be achieved safely. We explored whether initial combination treatment with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin and metformin could provide better glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) than metformin alone without increasing hypoglycemia. METHODS: We pooled and analyzed individual patient data from two randomized clinical trials of early combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy. The primary outcome in both trials was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. We evaluated the percentage of patients who achieved HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at week 24 and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Most (> 70%) of the 1160 patients analyzed were treatment naive, and more than half had had diabetes for ≤ 1 year; mean baseline HbA1c was approximately 8.7%. Combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin resulted in more patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 6.5% than metformin alone, both for a metformin dose of 500 mg (40.1 vs. 22.9%, respectively, odds ratio [OR] 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-4.32) and 1000 mg (49.5 vs. 35.4%, respectively, OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.54-3.40). Hypoglycemia occurred in < 3% of patients, with a comparable incidence between treatment groups. Other adverse events were also balanced between groups. CONCLUSION: Early combination treatment with linagliptin and metformin can improve the chances of achieving tight glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00798161 and NCT01708902.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...