Dataset Information

Reexamining Ophthalmic Drugs, Safety and Tolerability in Phase 1 Clinical Trials

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of drugs used for treating common eye disorders when applied to normal healthy volunteers (NHVs) as explored in phase 1 trials.

Subjects and Methods

A total of 166 NHVs were identified in six phase 1 trials, examined in a retrospective analysis. The primary endpoints were visual comfort (by ocular comfort index, OCI) and safety (laboratory evaluations, vital signs (VS), visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), lissamine green and fluorescein staining, conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, and adverse events’ incidence (AE)).

Results

Compared to baseline, 75.9%, 40.4% and 73.7% of NHV (for lubricant, hypotensive and antibiotic treatments, respectively) improved their OCI score by their final visit. Laboratory evaluations and VS were within normal ranges in 88% of NHV. Similar results were found for VA, corneal and conjunctival staining, and chemosis. IOP decreased significantly in the hypotensive agents’ group, trace to mild hyperemia was reported in 32.1%, 27.1%, and 6.8%, respectively. Additionally, lubricant and hypotensive investigational drugs (ID) had a lower risk of incidence of AE than approved drugs (OR 0.856, 95% CI [0.365, 1.999] and 0.636, 95% CI [0.096, 4.197], respectively). Meanwhile, on antibiotic drugs, the risk for ID-related AE was higher (OR 1.313, 95% CI [0.309, 5.583]).

Conclusion

Phase 1 trials are important in order to ensure the safety and tolerability of ophthalmic medications. This study demonstrates that NHVs do not face a significant risk of harm in these studies, since 98% of the reported AE were mild, and all AE were resolved by the end of the study in which they appeared.

Trial Registration

This is a retrospective study of six previously conducted clinical trials, registered on clinicaltrials.gov with the following registration IDs: NCT04081610, NCT03524157, NCT03520348, NCT03966365, NCT03965052 and, NCT03519516.

SUBMITTER: Munoz-Villegas P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8544558 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWe characterized the safety and tolerability of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, empagliflozin 10 mg, or empagliflozin 25 mg in clinical trials.MethodsPooled data were analyzed from patients with T2DM treated with placebo (N = 4203), empagliflozin 10 mg (N = 4221), or empagliflozin 25 mg (N = 4196) in 15 randomized phase I-III trials plus four extension studies. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed descriptively in participants who took at least one dose of study drug. AE incidence rates per 100 patient-years were calculated to adjust for differences in drug exposure between trials.ResultsTotal exposure was 7369, 7782, and 7754 patient-years in the placebo, empagliflozin 10 mg, and 25 mg groups, respectively. The incidence of any AEs, severe AEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation was no higher in participants treated with empagliflozin vs. placebo. Empagliflozin was not associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia vs. placebo, except in participants on background sulfonylurea. The incidence of events consistent with urinary tract infection was similar across treatment groups (8.7-9.5/100 patient-years). Events consistent with genital infection occurred more frequently in participants treated with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg (3.5 and 3.4/100 patient-years, respectively) than placebo (0.9/100 patient-years). The incidence of AEs consistent with volume depletion was similar across treatment groups (1.7-1.9/100 patient-years) but was higher with empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg vs. placebo in participants aged 75 years or older (3.2 and 3.0 vs. 2.3/100 patient-years, respectively). The rates of bone fractures, cancer events, renal AEs, venous thromboembolic events, hepatic injury, acute pancreatitis, lower limb amputations, and diabetic ketoacidosis were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionThis analysis of pooled safety data based on more than 15,000 patient-years' exposure supports a favorable benefit-risk profile of empagliflozin in patients with T2DM.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH.

Project description:BackgroundNew antimalarial regimens, including artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), have been adopted widely as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. Although these drugs appear to be safe and well-tolerated, experience with their use in Africa is limited and continued assessment of safety is a priority. However, no standardized guidelines for evaluating drug safety and tolerability in malaria studies exist. A system for monitoring adverse events in antimalarial trials conducted in Uganda was developed. Here the reporting system is described, and difficulties faced in analysing and interpreting the safety results are illustrated, using data from the trials.Case descriptionBetween 2002 and 2007, eleven randomized, controlled clinical trials were conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different antimalarial regimens for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Uganda. The approach to adverse event monitoring was similar in all studies. A total of 5,614 treatments were evaluated in 4,876 patients. Differences in baseline characteristics and patterns of adverse event reporting were noted between the sites, which limited the ability to pool and analyse data. Clinical failure following antimalarial treatment confounded associations between treatment and adverse events that were also common symptoms of malaria, particularly in areas of lower transmission intensity.Discussion and evaluationDespite prospectively evaluating for adverse events, limitations in the monitoring system were identified. New standardized guidelines for monitoring safety and tolerability in antimalarial trials are needed, which should address how to detect events of greatest importance, including serious events, those with a causal relationship to the treatment, those which impact on adherence, and events not previously reported.ConclusionAlthough the World Health Organization has supported the development of pharmacovigilance systems in African countries deploying ACTs, additional guidance on adverse events monitoring in antimalarial clinical trials is needed, similar to the standardized recommendations available for assessment of drug efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundThe Zika virus epidemic and associated congenital infections have prompted rapid vaccine development. We assessed two new DNA vaccines expressing premembrane and envelope Zika virus structural proteins.MethodsWe did two phase 1, randomised, open-label trials involving healthy adult volunteers. The VRC 319 trial, done in three centres, assessed plasmid VRC5288 (Zika virus and Japanese encephalitis virus chimera), and the VRC 320, done in one centre, assessed plasmid VRC5283 (wild-type Zika virus). Eligible participants were aged 18-35 years in VRC19 and 18-50 years in VRC 320. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 by a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the study statistician. All participants received intramuscular injection of 4 mg vaccine. In VRC 319 participants were assigned to receive vaccinations via needle and syringe at 0 and 8 weeks, 0 and 12 weeks, 0, 4, and 8 weeks, or 0, 4, and 20 weeks. In VRC 320 participants were assigned to receive vaccinations at 0, 4, and 8 weeks via single-dose needle and syringe injection in one deltoid or split-dose needle and syringe or needle-free injection with the Stratis device (Pharmajet, Golden, CO, USA) in each deltoid. Both trials followed up volunteers for 24 months for the primary endpoint of safety, assessed as local and systemic reactogenicity in the 7 days after each vaccination and all adverse events in the 28 days after each vaccination. The secondary endpoint in both trials was immunogenicity 4 weeks after last vaccination. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02840487 and NCT02996461.FindingsVRC 319 enrolled 80 participants (20 in each group), and VRC 320 enrolled 45 participants (15 in each group). One participant in VRC 319 and two in VRC 320 withdrew after one dose of vaccine, but were included in the safety analyses. Both vaccines were safe and well tolerated. All local and systemic symptoms were mild to moderate. In both studies, pain and tenderness at the injection site was the most frequent local symptoms (37 [46%] of 80 participants in VRC 319 and 36 [80%] of 45 in VRC 320) and malaise and headache were the most frequent systemic symptoms (22 [27%] and 18 [22%], respectively, in VRC 319 and 17 [38%] and 15 [33%], respectively, in VRC 320). For VRC5283, 14 of 14 (100%) participants who received split-dose vaccinations by needle-free injection had detectable positive antibody responses, and the geometric mean titre of 304 was the highest across all groups in both trials.InterpretationVRC5283 was well tolerated and has advanced to phase 2 efficacy testing.FundingIntramural Research Program of the Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.