Dataset Information

Randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of a new oral spray for drug-induced xerostomia.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three formulations of DC161 oral spray, a saliva substitute, and a comparator in relieving drug-induced xerostomia. This was an open-label, randomized, 4-period, cross-over study in adult subjects with drug-induced xerostomia and documented hyposalivation. During each of the four 1-day periods, one product (one of three DC161 formulations or the comparator) was applied at T0 and then at T4h (before a meal). Mouth dryness and related symptoms were evaluated by the subject on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The primary efficacy criterion was the area under the curve of the dry mouth evaluation (baseline to T4h) after the first application. The oral mucosa was examined by a dental specialist; tolerability and product acceptability were assessed by the subject. Twenty-four subjects were randomized and completed the study. Despite large variability in data among the products, the selected aqueous formulation - DC161-DP0292 - reduced the intensity of dryness of mouth at least as well as the comparator; DC161-DP0292 provided a fast relief and a long-lasting effect on mouth dryness. Both products improved other symptoms such as swallowing and speaking, even when applied just prior to a meal. DC161-DP0292 was well tolerated and rated by subjects as providing a slightly higher acceptability of taste/aftertaste, texture, and lubricating effect than the comparator. No clinically relevant signs were reported for any product following the oral examination. DC161-DP0292 provides fast and long-acting symptomatic relief and is a relevant new treatment for drug-induced xerostomia.

SUBMITTER: Donath F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5839221 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of a new oral spray for drug-induced xerostomia.

Donath Frank F Tonner Françoise F Chavda Rajeev R Gatignol Jean-Philippe JP Bouyrie Julie J

Clinical and experimental dental research 20160512 2

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three formulations of DC161 oral spray, a saliva substitute, and a comparator in relieving drug-induced xerostomia. This was an open-label, randomized, 4-period, cross-over study in adult subjects with drug-induced xerostomia and documented hyposalivation. During each of the four 1-day periods, one product (one of three DC161 formulations or the comparator) was applied at T0 and then at T4h (before a meal). Mouth dry ...[more]

PMID: 29744157

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOral finasteride is a well-established treatment for men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA), but long-term therapy is not always acceptable to patients. A topical finasteride formulation has been developed to minimize systemic exposure by acting specifically on hair follicles.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical finasteride compared with placebo, and to analyse systemic exposure and overall benefit compared with oral finasteride.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel-group, 24-week study was conducted in adult male outpatients with AGA at 45 sites in Europe. Efficacy and safety were evaluated. Finasteride, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) concentrations were measured.ResultsOf 458 randomized patients, 323 completed the study and 446 were evaluated for safety. Change from baseline in target area hair count (TAHC) at week 24 (primary efficacy endpoint) was significantly greater with topical finasteride than placebo (adjusted mean change 20.2 vs. 6.7 hairs; P < 0.001), and numerically similar between topical and oral finasteride. Statistically significant differences favouring topical finasteride over placebo were observed for change from baseline in TAHC at week 12 and investigator-assessed change from baseline in patient hair growth/loss at week 24. Incidence and type of adverse events, and cause of discontinuation, did not differ meaningfully between topical finasteride and placebo. No serious adverse events were treatment related. As maximum plasma finasteride concentrations were >100 times lower, and reduction from baseline in mean serum DHT concentration was lower (34.5 vs. 55.6%), with topical vs. oral finasteride, there is less likelihood of systemic adverse reactions of a sexual nature related to a decrease in DHT with topical finasteride.ConclusionTopical finasteride significantly improves hair count compared to placebo and is well tolerated. Its effect is similar to that of oral finasteride, but with markedly lower systemic exposure and less impact on serum DHT concentrations.

Project description:BackgroundAbout one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression.MethodsThis Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested.ResultsStatistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache.ConclusionsStatistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Project description:BackgroundRoflumilast is a targeted inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 and has been approved for treatment of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for more than a decade. Generic versions are available in the United States. PDE-4 is involved in the psoriasis pathogenesis, but the efficacy and safety of oral roflumilast in patients with psoriasis have not previously been studied.MethodsA company-independent, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04549870). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive monotherapy with oral roflumilast 500 μg once daily or placebo. At week 12, placebo patients were switched to open-label roflumilast through week 24. The primary endpoint was a 75% or greater reduction from baseline in the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI75) at week 12.FindingsIn all, 46 patients were randomized (roflumilast, n = 23; placebo, n = 23). At week 12, significantly more patients in the active arm achieved PASI75 (8 of 23 patients [35%]) vs. placebo (0 of 23 patients [0%], with a difference vs. placebo of 8 [35%] patients, 95% CI: 3 [13%]-13 [57%] patients) (p = 0.014). At week 24, 15 (65%), 10 (44%), 5 (22%), and 2 (9%) of patients treated with roflumilast from week 0 had PASI50, PASI75, PASI90, and PASI100 responses (key secondary endpoints), respectively. The most prevalent, drug-related adverse events in both treatment groups were transient gastrointestinal symptoms, weight-loss, headache, and insomnia. A total of three patients (roflumilast n = 2; placebo, n = 1) discontinued therapy due to adverse events.InterpretationOral roflumilast was efficacious and safe in treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis over 24 weeks. With generic versions available, this drug may represent an inexpensive and convenient alternative to established systemic psoriasis treatments.FundingFinancial support was received from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and independent grants from private foundations in Denmark. No pharmaceutical company, including the market authorization holder of roflumilast, was involved in the study at any point.

Project description:Despite advances in pharmacotherapy, diabetic kidney disease (DKD) remains associated with a high burden of micro- and macrovascular complications often leading to premature mortality. New therapies are highly desirable to mitigate the burden of this disease. However, there are a number of barriers that hamper drug development in DKD. These include, amongst others, the lengthy and complex clinical trials required to prove drug efficacy and safety, inefficiencies in clinical trial conduct, and the high costs associated with these development programs. In this review a number of aspects are discussed, aiming to identify opportunities to transform and innovate drug development for DKD. Many clinical trials in DKD, as well as in other areas, face difficulties in timely and efficient enrolment of participants. To address this issue a network of sites should be created that are continuously recruiting individuals with DKD and collecting crucial information that can be used to understand prognosis and prognostic factors, and more importantly to serve as a pool of participants for recruitment to randomized trials. Second, the current clinical endpoints are late events in the progression of DKD. Endpoints based on lesser declines in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or changes in albuminuria can shorten follow-up and/or lead to smaller and cheaper trials. Enrichment by enrolling clinical trial populations based on biomarker profiles is another approach that may facilitate clinical trial efficiency and conduct. Biomarkers can be used to individualize treatment by targeting populations more likely to respond leading to smaller and more efficient trials. Finally, using new trial design such as basket, umbrella or more broadly platform trials to assess a number of therapies simultaneously offers the potential to transform the drug development process in DKD. There are a number of opportunities to transform development approaches for new therapies for DKD. Platform trials along with appropriate biomarker-based enrichment strategies offer the possibility to foster drug development in a precision medicine era.

Project description:ImportanceControlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant.Design, setting, and participantsIn this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase.InterventionsPatients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group.Main outcomes and measuresTime to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test.ResultsAmong the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P < .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel formulation of midazolam administered as a single-dose nasal spray (MDZ-NS) in the outpatient treatment of patients experiencing seizure clusters (SCs).MethodsThis was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01390220) with patients age ≥12 years on a stable regimen of antiepileptic drugs. Following an in-clinic test dose phase (TDP), patients entered an outpatient comparative phase (CP) and were randomized (2:1) to receive double-blind MDZ-NS 5 mg or placebo nasal spray, administered by caregivers when they experienced an SC. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success (seizure termination within 10 minutes and no recurrence 10 minutes to 6 hours after trial drug administration). Secondary efficacy end points were proportion of patients with seizure recurrence 10 minutes to 4 hours, and time-to-next seizure >10 minutes after double-blind drug administration. Safety was monitored throughout.ResultsOf 292 patients administered a test dose, 262 patients were randomized, and 201 received double-blind treatment for an SC (n = 134 MDZ-NS, n = 67 placebo, modified intent-to-treat population). A significantly greater proportion of MDZ-NS- than placebo-treated patients achieved treatment success (53.7% vs 34.4%; P = 0.0109). Significantly, fewer MDZ-NS- than placebo-treated patients experienced seizure recurrence (38.1% vs 59.7%; P = 0.0043). Time-to-next seizure analysis showed early separation (within 30 minutes) between MDZ-NS and placebo that was maintained throughout the 24-hour observation period (21% difference at 24 hours; P = 0.0124). Sixteen patients (5.5%) discontinued because of a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the TDP and none during the CP. During the CP, 27.6% and 22.4% of patients in the MDZ-NS and placebo groups, respectively, experienced ≥1 TEAE.SignificanceMDZ-NS was superior to placebo in providing rapid, sustained seizure control when administered to patients experiencing an SC in the outpatient setting and was associated with a favorable safety profile.

Dataset Information

Randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of a new oral spray for drug-induced xerostomia.

Publications

Randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of a new oral spray for drug-induced xerostomia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets