Dataset Information

Spesolimab Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIb, Dose-Finding Study.

ABSTRACT:

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).

SUBMITTER: Burden AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10539230 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Spesolimab Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIb, Dose-Finding Study.

Burden A David AD Bissonnette Robert R Navarini Alexander A AA Murakami Masamoto M Morita Akimichi A Haeufel Thomas T Ye Binqi B Baehner Frank F Terui Tadashi T

Dermatology and therapy 20230920 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>We evaluated the anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP).<h4>Methods</h4>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 t ...[more]

PMID: 37731086

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCo-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC), containing equimolar quantities of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) tramadol and celecoxib (100 mg CTC = 44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride and 56 mg celecoxib), is a novel API-API co-crystal for the treatment of pain. We aimed to establish the effective dose of CTC for treating acute pain following oral surgery.MethodsA dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo- and active-controlled, multicentre (nine Spanish hospitals), phase II study (EudraCT number: 2011-002778-21) was performed in male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years experiencing moderate to severe pain following extraction of two or more impacted third molars requiring bone removal. Eligible patients were randomised via a computer-generated list to receive one of six single-dose treatments (CTC 50, 100, 150, 200 mg; tramadol 100 mg; and placebo). The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 h assessed in the per-protocol population.ResultsBetween 10 February 2012 and 13 February 2013, 334 patients were randomised and received study treatment: 50 mg (n = 55), 100 mg (n = 53), 150 mg (n = 57), or 200 mg (n = 57) of CTC, 100 mg tramadol (n = 58), or placebo (n = 54). CTC 100, 150, and 200 mg showed significantly higher efficacy compared with placebo and/or tramadol in all measures: SPID (0-8 h) (mean [standard deviation]): - 90 (234), - 139 (227), - 173 (224), 71 (213), and 22 (228), respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events was lower in the 50 (12.7% [n = 7]), 100 (11.3% [n = 6]), and 150 (15.8% [n = 9]) mg CTC groups, and similar in the 200 mg (29.8% [n = 17]) CTC group, compared with the tramadol group (29.3% [n = 17]), with nausea, dizziness, and vomiting the most frequent events.ConclusionSignificant improvement in the benefit-risk ratio was observed for CTC (doses ≥ 100 mg) over tramadol and placebo in the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery.FundingLaboratorios del Dr. Esteve, S.A.U.

Project description:Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients.We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid ? (A?)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759).89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma A?(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group.Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Project description:BackgroundThis review's goals were to investigate apremilast's efficacy versus placebo in palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP), and apremilast's efficacy versus methotrexate in PP.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase in July 2022. Publications investigating subjects with PP or PPP, treated with apremilast, which reported palmoplantar-specific outcomes were used. Exclusion criteria included cases of drug-induced PP/PPP, case studies, non-English texts, omission of palmoplantar-specific outcomes, and incomplete publications. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane Review Manager application and CASP checklist. Primary endpoints were a 50% improvement of the Palmoplantar Psoriasis/Pustulosis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI 50) and improvement of the Palmoplantar Physician Global Assessment (PPPGA) to 0 or 1 in patients with baseline PPPGA ≥ 3.ResultsSeventeen original studies including five placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one phase II clinical trial, two randomized methotrexate comparative trials, six cohort studies, and three case series were analyzed, totaling 1117 participants. Meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled RCTs investigating PP found apremilast treatment to be superior to placebo in achieving a PPPGA of 0/1 (baseline PPPGA of ≥ 3) after 16 weeks of treatment (n = 244; OR = 2.69 [1.39-5.22]). Apremilast was superior to placebo in achieving PPPASI 50 at week 16 in the only placebo-controlled RCT of PPP (78.3 vs. 40.9%) [P = 0.0003]. Apremilast was comparable to methotrexate in achieving PPPASI 50 at week 16 in PP (59.5 vs. 64.3%; n = 84; [P = 0.65]). Non-randomized studies generally showed marked improvement in PPPASI, PPPGA, and DLQI scores following apremilast treatment.DiscussionApremilast treatment in PP and PPP resulted in significant improvement in objective, palmoplantar-specific clinical parameters versus placebo, and comparable efficacy with methotrexate in PP. Limitations in interpreting these results include variations in palmoplantar-specific metrics used and risk of bias of included studies.

Dataset Information

Spesolimab Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIb, Dose-Finding Study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Spesolimab Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Palmoplantar Pustulosis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIb, Dose-Finding Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets