Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of RimabotulinumtoxinB for Treatment of Sialorrhea in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

RimabotulinumtoxinB (RIMA) may be preferable as an anti-sialorrhea treatment compared with current oral anticholinergic drugs in people with neurological disorders.

Objective

To assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of RIMA injections for the treatment of sialorrhea in adults.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of RIMA 2500 U and 3500 U was conducted from November 14, 2013, to January 23, 2017. A total of 249 adult patients with troublesome sialorrhea secondary to any disorder or cause were screened. Of them, 13 refused further participation in the study or were lost to follow-up and 49 did not fulfill the criteria for participation; 187 were ultimately enrolled. Patients had to have a minimum unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR) of 0.2 g/min and a minimum Drooling Frequency and Severity Scale score of 4.

Exposures

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to RIMA, 2500 U (n = 63); RIMA, 3500 U (n = 64); or placebo (n = 60).

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes were the change in USFR from baseline to week 4 and the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) at week 4. The CGI-C scores were recorded on a 7-point scale ranging from very much improved to very much worse. Adverse events were recorded throughout the trial period.

Results

Of 187 patients enrolled (147 men [78.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [13.3] years), 122 patients had Parkinson disease (65.2%), 13 (7.0%) were stroke survivors, 12 had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (6.4%), 6 had medication-induced sialorrhea (3.2%), 4 had adult cerebral palsy (2.1%), and 30 had sialorrhea owing to other causes (16.0%). A total of 176 completed the study. Treatment with both doses of RIMA significantly reduced USFR at week 4 vs placebo (mean treatment difference, -0.30 g/min [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.21] for both doses vs placebo, P < .001). The CGI-C scores were statistically significantly improved at week 4 for both treatment groups vs placebo (-1.21 [95% CI, -1.56 to -0.87] for 2500 U, -1.14 [95% CI, -1.49 to -0.80] for 3500 U, both P < .001). Treatment benefits were seen as early as 1 week after injection and were maintained over the treatment cycle of approximately 13 weeks. The RIMA injections were well tolerated compared with placebo. The most common adverse events were self-limited mild to moderate dry mouth, dysphagia, and dental caries.

Conclusions and relevance

Treatment with RIMA (2500 U and 3500 U) in adults was well tolerated and reduced sialorrhea, with the onset of the effect at 1 week after the injection. These data support the clinical use of RIMA in the management of sialorrhea in adults.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01994109.

SUBMITTER: Isaacson SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6990829 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIndividuals living with schizophrenia are affected by cardiometabolic, endocrine, and motor adverse effects of current antipsychotic medications. Lumateperone is a serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate modulator with the potential to treat schizophrenia with few adverse effects.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy and safety of lumateperone for the short-term treatment of schizophrenia.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial was conducted from November 13, 2014, to July 20, 2015, with data analyses performed from August 13 to September 15, 2015. Patients with schizophrenia who were aged 18 to 60 years and were experiencing an acute exacerbation of psychosis were enrolled from 12 clinical sites in the United States.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 (150 patients in each arm) to receive lumateperone tosylate, 60 mg; lumateperone tosylate, 40 mg (equivalent to 42 or 28 mg, respectively, of the active moiety lumateperone); or placebo once daily for 4 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary efficacy end point was mean change from baseline to day 28 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score vs placebo. The key secondary efficacy measure was the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score. The PANSS subscale scores, social function, safety, and tolerability were also assessed.ResultsThe study comprised 450 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.4 [10.2] years; 346 [77.1%] male; mean [SD] baseline PANSS score, 89.8 [10.3]; mean [SD] baseline CGI-S score, 4.8 [0.6]). In the prespecified modified intent-to-treat efficacy analysis (n = 435), 42 mg of lumateperone met the primary and key secondary efficacy objectives, demonstrating a statistically significant improvement vs placebo from baseline to day 28 on the PANSS total score (least-squares mean difference [LSMD], -4.2; 95% CI, -7.8 to -0.6; P = .02; effect size [ES], -0.3) and the CGI-S (LSMD, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P = .003; ES, -0.4). For 28 mg of lumateperone, the LSMD from baseline to day 28 was -2.6 (95% CI, -6.2 to 1.1; P = .16; ES, -0.2) on the PANSS total score and -0.2 (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.0; P = .02; ES, -0.3) on the CGI-S. Both lumateperone doses were well tolerated without clinically significant treatment-emergent motor adverse effects or changes in cardiometabolic or endocrine factors vs placebo.Conclusions and relevanceLumateperone demonstrated efficacy for improving the symptoms of schizophrenia and had a favorable safety profile.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02282761.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been investigated for treatment of COVID-19, but none was confirmed to be efficacious. While in vitro studies have demonstrated antiviral properties of HCQ, data from clinical trials were conflicting regarding its benefit for COVID-19 treatment. Drugs that limit viral replication may be beneficial in the earlier course of the disease thus slowing progression to severe and critical illness.DesignWe conducted a randomized open label Phase II clinical trial from October-December 2020.MethodsPatients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were included in the study if they were 18 years and above and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 made in the last 3 days. Patients were randomized in blocks, to receive either HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days plus standard of care (SOC) treatment or SOC treatment alone. SARS COV-2 viral load (CT values) from RT-PCR testing of samples collected using nasal/orapharyngeal swabs was performed at baseline, day 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. The primary outcome was median time from randomization to SARS COV-2 viral clearance by day 6.ResultsOf the 105 participants enrolled, 55 were assigned to the intervention group (HCQ plus SOC) and 50 to the control group (SOC only). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. Viral clearance did not differ by treatment arm, 20 and 19 participants respectively had SARS COV-2 viral load clearance by day 6 with no significant difference, median (IQR) number of days to viral load clearance between the two groups was 4(3-4) vs 4(2-4): p = 0.457. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes (symptom resolution and adverse events) between the intervention group and the control group. There were no significant differences in specific adverse events such as elevated alkaline phosphatase, prolonged QTc interval on ECG, among patients in the intervention group as compared to the control group.ConclusionOur results show that HCQ 400 mg twice a day for the first day followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next 4 days was safe but not associated with reduction in viral clearance or symptom resolution among adults with COVID-19 in Uganda.Trial registration NCT04860284.

Project description:ImportanceAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD.Design, setting, and participantsHeads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug.ResultsOf 924 patients screened, 348 (183 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.6] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 344 were randomized to receive dupilumab (194 men [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [14.1] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 247 patients receiving upadacitinib (71.0%) and 210 patients receiving dupilumab (61.1%) achieved EASI75 (P = .006). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 31.4% [1.7%] vs 8.8% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [43.7%] vs 60 [17.4%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [27.9%] vs 26 [7.6%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab.Conclusions and relevanceDuring 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397.