Dataset Information

Clofazimine for Treatment of Cryptosporidiosis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infected Adults: An Experimental Medicine, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Phase 2a Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We evaluated the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of clofazimine (CFZ) in patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with cryptosporidiosis.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Primary outcomes in part A were reduction in Cryptosporidium shedding, safety, and PK. Primary analysis was according to protocol (ATP). Part B of the study compared CFZ PK in matched individuals living with HIV without cryptosporidiosis.

Results

Twenty part A and 10 part B participants completed the study ATP. Almost all part A participants had high viral loads and low CD4 counts, consistent with failure of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. At study entry, the part A CFZ group had higher Cryptosporidium shedding, total stool weight, and more diarrheal episodes compared with the placebo group. Over the inpatient period, compared with those who received placebo, the CFZ group Cryptosporidium shedding increased by 2.17 log2 Cryptosporidium per gram stool (95% upper confidence limit, 3.82), total stool weight decreased by 45.3 g (P = .37), and number of diarrheal episodes increased by 2.32 (P = .87). The most frequent solicited adverse effects were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and malaise. One placebo and 3 CFZ participants died during the study. Plasma levels of CFZ in participants with cryptosporidiosis were 2-fold lower than in part B controls.

Conclusions

Our findings do not support the efficacy of CFZ for the treatment of cryptosporidiosis in a severely immunocompromised HIV population. However, this trial demonstrates a pathway to assess the therapeutic potential of drugs for cryptosporidiosis treatment. Screening persons living with HIV for diarrhea, and especially Cryptosporidium infection, may identify those failing ARV therapy.

Clinical trials registration

NCT03341767.

SUBMITTER: Iroh Tam P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8282326 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Infection with Cryptosporidium spp. can cause severe diarrhea, leading to long-term adverse impacts and even death in malnourished children and immunocompromised patients. The only FDA-approved drug for treating cryptosporidiosis, nitazoxanide, has limited efficacy in the populations impacted the most by the diarrheal disease, and safe, effective treatment options are urgently needed. Initially identified by a large-scale phenotypic screening campaign, the antimycobacterial therapeutic clofazimine demonstrated great promise in both in vitro and in vivo preclinical models of Cryptosporidium infection. Unfortunately, a phase 2a clinical trial in HIV-infected adults with cryptosporidiosis did not identify any clofazimine treatment effect on Cryptosporidium infection burden or clinical outcomes. To explore whether clofazimine's lack of efficacy in the phase 2a trial may have been due to subtherapeutic clofazimine concentrations, a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling approach was undertaken to determine the relationship between clofazimine in vivo concentrations and treatment effects in multiple preclinical infection models. Exposure-response relationships were characterized using Emax and logistic models, which allowed predictions of efficacious clofazimine concentrations for the control and reduction of disease burden. After establishing exposure-response relationships for clofazimine treatment of Cryptosporidium infection in our preclinical model studies, it was unmistakable that the clofazimine levels observed in the phase 2a study participants were well below concentrations associated with anti-Cryptosporidium efficacy. Thus, despite a dosing regimen above the highest doses recommended for mycobacterial therapy, it is very likely the lack of treatment effect in the phase 2a trial was at least partially due to clofazimine concentrations below those required for efficacy against cryptosporidiosis. It is unlikely that clofazimine will provide a remedy for the large number of cryptosporidiosis patients currently without a viable treatment option unless alternative, safe clofazimine formulations with improved oral absorption are developed. (This study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03341767.).

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate oral setipiprant versus placebo for scalp hair growth in men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA).Patients and methodsMales aged 18 to 49 years with AGA were enrolled in a double-blind, multicenter, 32-week, phase 2a trial; randomized to twice-daily (BID) 1000-mg (2×500 mg for a total daily dose of 2000 mg) setipiprant tablets or placebo for 24 weeks; and assessed at weeks 4, 8, 16, and 24, with a week 32 follow-up. The study initially included a finasteride 1-mg once-daily group, removed by protocol amendment. Changes from baseline to week 24 in target area hair count (TAHC) and blinded Subject Self-Assessment (SSA) of target area photographs were coprimary efficacy endpoints. Hair growth was also evaluated using blinded Investigator Global Assessment (IGA). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory tests. Analysis of covariance models were used to test statistical significance for TAHC, SSA, and IGA. Data were summarized without statistical analysis for finasteride.ResultsRandomized subjects (N=169) included 74 placebo, 83 setipiprant, and 12 finasteride subjects; 117 (69.2%) and 113 (66.9%) subjects completed week 24 and 32 visits, respectively. Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. Neither coprimary efficacy endpoint was met. At week 24, TAHC and SSA findings indicated no hair growth improvements with setipiprant versus placebo. Setipiprant also did not improve hair growth versus placebo per the IGA. Treatment-related AEs, all mild or moderate in severity, occurred in 12.3%, 25.9%, and 25.0% of the placebo, setipiprant, and finasteride groups, respectively. Two treatment-emergent serious AEs (TESAEs), cellulitis and multiple sclerosis, were reported in the placebo group, both unrelated to treatment. No TESAEs were reported with setipiprant or finasteride.ConclusionSetipiprant 1000 mg BID was safe and well tolerated but did not demonstrate efficacy versus placebo for scalp hair growth in men with AGA.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation in 10-20% of patients. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor ? monoclonal antibody, depletes blood and sputum eosinophils. We aimed to establish whether benralizumab reduces acute exacerbations of COPD in patients with eosinophilia and COPD. METHODS:We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study between Nov 18, 2010, and July 13, 2013, at 26 sites in the UK, Poland, Germany, Canada, the USA, Denmark, and Spain. Adults aged 40-85 years, with moderate-to-severe COPD, at least one acute exacerbation of COPD, and a sputum eosinophil count of 3·0% or more within the previous year, were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size of four), with an interactive voice or web-response system, to receive placebo or 100 mg benralizumab subcutaneously, every 4 weeks (three doses), then every 8 weeks (five doses) over 48 weeks. Study site personnel included in study assessments, participants, and data analysts, were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the annualised rate of acute exacerbations of COPD at week 56, defined as the number of acute exacerbations divided by total duration of person-year follow-up. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included COPD-specific Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire self-administered standardised format (CRQ-SAS), pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and safety. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline blood eosinophil count. Analyses were by intention to treat and per-protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227278. FINDINGS:We randomly assigned 101 patients to receive placebo (n=50) or benralizumab (n=51), of whom 88 (87%) patients completed the study. Six patients who completed the study were excluded from the per-protocol population because of major protocol violations; the per-protocol population thus included 82 patients. Benralizumab did not reduce the annualised rate of acute exacerbations of COPD compared with placebo in the per-protocol population, with rates of 0·95 (0·68-1·29; n=40) versus 0·92 (0·67-1·25; n=42). Mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 change from baseline to week 56 was -0·06 L (SD 0·24) with placebo, and 0·13 L (0·41) with benralizumab (p=0·014). Numerical, albeit non-significant, improvement in acute exacerbations of COPD, SGRQ-C, CRQ-SAS, and FEV1 were greater in benralizumab-treated patients with baseline blood eosinophil concentrations of 200 cells per ?L or more or 300 cells per ?L or more. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the two groups, with the most common events being respiratory disorders (31 [62%] of 50 patients given placebo vs 32 [63%] of 51 given benralizumab) and infections (28 [56%] vs 27 [53%]). A higher incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in patients in the benralizumab group than in those in the placebo group (14 vs nine patients), although none of these events were considered by the investigator to be benralizumab related. INTERPRETATION:Compared with placebo, benralizumab did not reduce the rate of acute exacerbations of COPD. However, the results of prespecified subgroup analysis support further investigation of benralizumab in patients with COPD and eosinophilia. FUNDING:MedImmune.

Project description:BackgroundAlphaviruses, such as Ross River (RRV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV), cause significant global morbidity, with outbreaks of crippling joint inflammation and pain, leaving patients incapacitated for months to years. With no available vaccine or specific therapeutic for any alphaviral disease, and a growing economic and public health burden, there is a serious need for the development of specific therapies.MethodsThis study evaluated the safety and efficacy of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS) in subjects with RRV-induced arthralgia in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Twenty subjects were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous PPS (2 mg/kg) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) twice weekly for 6 weeks. Safety evaluation included physical examination, concomitant medications, and laboratory findings. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in joint function (hand grip strength and RAPID3) and quality of life (SF-36) at Days 15, 29, 39 and 81 after treatment initiation. Inflammatory and cartilage degradation biomarkers were exploratory endpoints.ResultsPPS was well tolerated, with a similar proportion of subjects reporting at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the treatment and placebo groups. Injection site reactions were the most common TEAE and occurred more frequently in the PPS group. Dominant hand grip strength and SF-36 scores improved with PPS at all time points assessed, with hand grip strength improvement of 6.99 kg (p = 0.0189) higher than placebo at Day 15. PPS showed significant improvements versus placebo in adjusted mean relative change from baseline for RAPID3 Pain (p = 0.0197) and Total (p = 0.0101) scores at Day 15. At the conclusion of the study overall joint symptoms, assessed by RAPID3, showed near remission in 61.5% of PPS subjects versus 14.3% of placebo subjects. Additionally, PPS treatment improved COMP, CTX-II, CCL1, CXCL12, CXCL16 and CCL17 biomarker levels versus placebo.ConclusionsOverall, the improvements in strength and joint symptoms warrant further evaluation of PPS as a specific treatment for RRV-induced and other forms of arthritis.Trial registrationThis trial is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry # ACTRN12617000893303 .

Project description:Background A substantial and unmet clinical need exists for pharmacological treatment of cannabis use disorders. Cannabidiol could offer a novel treatment, but it is unclear which doses might be efficacious or safe. Therefore, we aimed to identify efficacious doses and eliminate inefficacious doses in a phase 2a trial using an adaptive Bayesian design.MethodsWe did a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive Bayesian trial at the Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit (University College London, London, UK). We used an adaptive Bayesian dose-finding design to identify efficacious or inefficacious doses at a-priori interim and final analysis stages. Participants meeting cannabis use disorder criteria from DSM-5 were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) in the first stage of the trial to 4-week treatment with three different doses of oral cannabidiol (200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or with matched placebo during a cessation attempt by use of a double-blinded block randomisation sequence. All participants received a brief psychological intervention of motivational interviewing. For the second stage of the trial, new participants were randomly assigned to placebo or doses deemed efficacious in the interim analysis. The primary objective was to identify the most efficacious dose of cannabidiol for reducing cannabis use. The primary endpoints were lower urinary 11-nor-9-carboxy-δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH):creatinine ratio, increased days per week with abstinence from cannabis during treatment, or both, evidenced by posterior probabilities that cannabidiol is better than placebo exceeding 0·9. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02044809) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (2013-000361-36).FindingsBetween May 28, 2014, and Aug 12, 2015 (first stage), 48 participants were randomly assigned to placebo (n=12) and to cannabidiol 200 mg (n=12), 400 mg (n=12), and 800 mg (n=12). At interim analysis, cannabidiol 200 mg was eliminated from the trial as an inefficacious dose. Between May 24, 2016, and Jan 12, 2017 (second stage), randomisation continued and an additional 34 participants were allocated (1:1:1) to cannabidiol 400 mg (n=12), cannabidiol 800 mg (n=11), and placebo (n=11). At final analysis, cannabidiol 400 mg and 800 mg exceeded primary endpoint criteria (0·9) for both primary outcomes. For urinary THC-COOH:creatinine ratio, the probability of being the most efficacious dose compared with placebo given the observed data was 0·9995 for cannabidiol 400 mg and 0·9965 for cannabidiol 800 mg. For days with abstinence from cannabis, the probability of being the most efficacious dose compared with placebo given the observed data was 0·9966 for cannabidiol 400 mg and 0·9247 for cannabidiol 800 mg. Compared with placebo, cannabidiol 400 mg decreased THC-COOH:creatinine ratio by -94·21 ng/mL (95% interval estimate -161·83 to -35·56) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0·48 days per week (0·15 to 0·82). Compared with placebo, cannabidiol 800 mg decreased THC-COOH:creatinine ratio by -72·02 ng/mL (-135·47 to -19·52) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0·27 days per week (-0·09 to 0·64). Cannabidiol was well tolerated, with no severe adverse events recorded, and 77 (94%) of 82 participants completed treatment.InterpretationIn the first randomised clinical trial of cannabidiol for cannabis use disorder, cannabidiol 400 mg and 800 mg were safe and more efficacious than placebo at reducing cannabis use.FundingMedical Research Council.