-
Lupus Science & Medicine Aug 2023To characterise the safety and efficacy of anifrolumab in active lupus nephritis (LN) through year 2 of the phase II randomised, double-blind Treatment of Uncontrolled... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To characterise the safety and efficacy of anifrolumab in active lupus nephritis (LN) through year 2 of the phase II randomised, double-blind Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-LN trial (NCT02547922) of 2 anifrolumab dosing regimens versus placebo.
METHODS
Patients received intravenous anifrolumab 900 mg for the first 3 doses followed by 300 mg anifrolumab (intensified regimen (IR)), 300 mg anifrolumab (basic regimen (BR)) or placebo every 4 weeks throughout. To continue into Year 2, patients must have achieved at least partial renal response and a glucocorticoid tapering target.
RESULTS
Of 147 randomised patients, 101 completed Year 1 study treatment; of these, 75 (74%) continued into Year 2 (anifrolumab IR: n=29, BR: n=23 and placebo: n=23). During Year 2, 72% of patients reported ≥1 adverse event (AE); serious AEs were reported in 6.9%, 8.7% and 8.7% of patients (anifrolumab IR, BR and placebo, respectively); 3 patients discontinued treatment due to an AE (anifrolumab IR: n=2 and placebo: n=1) and herpes zoster was reported in 2 patients (anifrolumab IR: n=1 and BR: n=1). The study was ongoing at the start of the pandemic, but no COVID-19 cases were reported. Of the 145 patients receiving treatment, more patients on the IR attained complete renal response at Week 104 compared with those on BR or placebo (27.3% vs 18.6% and 17.8%) and simultaneously achieved sustained glucocorticoid tapering (IR: 25.0%; BR: 18.6% and placebo: 17.8%). The improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate were numerically larger in both anifrolumab groups versus placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The safety and tolerability profile through Year 2 of TULIP-LN was generally consistent with Year 1, with promising efficacy results for the anifrolumab IR regimen. Collectively, the results support further investigation of an anifrolumab intensified dosing regimen in larger populations of patients with active proliferative LN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT02547922.
Topics: Humans; Lupus Nephritis; Glucocorticoids; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Kidney
PubMed: 37607780
DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2023-000910 -
JAMA Neurology Dec 2023Agitation is a prevalent, distressing, and burdensome manifestation of Alzheimer dementia in need of an efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated treatment.
IMPORTANCE
Agitation is a prevalent, distressing, and burdensome manifestation of Alzheimer dementia in need of an efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To confirm the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation in Alzheimer dementia.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized clinical trial was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, parallel-arm trial that ran from May 2018 to June 2022 at 123 clinical trial sites in Europe and the United States. Participants included patients with agitation in Alzheimer dementia in a care facility or community-based setting. Stable Alzheimer disease medications were permitted.
INTERVENTIONS
In this 2-arm trial, patients were randomized to receive oral brexpiprazole or placebo (2:1 ratio) for 12 weeks. Within the brexpiprazole arm, patients were further randomized to receive fixed doses of 2 mg/d or 3 mg/d in a 1:2 ratio.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was change in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory total score (which measures the frequency of 29 agitated behaviors) from baseline to week 12 for brexpiprazole, 2 or 3 mg, vs placebo. Safety was assessed by standard measures, including treatment-emergent adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 345 patients were randomized to receive brexpiprazole (n = 228) or placebo (n = 117); completion rates were 198 (86.8%) for brexpiprazole and 104 (88.9%) for placebo. Mean (SD) age was 74.0 (7.5) years, and 195 of 345 patients were female (56.5%). Patients receiving brexpiprazole, 2 or 3 mg (n = 225), demonstrated statistically significantly greater improvement than those taking placebo (n = 116) in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory total score from baseline to week 12 (brexpiprazole baseline, 80.6, mean change, -22.6; placebo baseline, 79.2, mean change, -17.3; least-squares mean difference, -5.32; 95% CI, -8.77 to -1.87; P = .003; Cohen d effect size, 0.35). No treatment-emergent adverse events had an incidence of 5% or more with brexpiprazole and greater incidence than placebo. The proportion of patients who discontinued because of adverse events was 12 of 226 (5.3%) for brexpiprazole and 5 of 116 (4.3%) for placebo.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, patients with Alzheimer dementia who took brexpiprazole, 2 or 3 mg, showed a statistically significant improvement vs placebo in agitation over 12 weeks. Brexpiprazole was generally well tolerated over 12 weeks in this vulnerable patient population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03548584.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Alzheimer Disease; Aggression; Double-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37930669
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.3810 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Oct 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin disease with significant unmet need. Blockade of the OX40-OX40 ligand (OX40L) costimulation pathway by targeting OX40L on... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Safety and efficacy of amlitelimab, a fully human nondepleting, noncytotoxic anti-OX40 ligand monoclonal antibody, in atopic dermatitis: results of a phase IIa randomized placebo-controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin disease with significant unmet need. Blockade of the OX40-OX40 ligand (OX40L) costimulation pathway by targeting OX40L on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) with a fully human noncytotoxic, nondepleting anti-OX40L monoclonal antibody (amlitelimab; SAR445229; KY1005) is a novel way to modulate persistent inflammation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of amlitelimab over 16 weeks in adults with AD in a phase IIa double-blind placebo-controlled study.
METHODS
The study was conducted at 19 hospitals in Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe AD were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to low-dose intravenous (IV) amlitelimab (200 mg), high-dose IV amlitelimab (500 mg) or placebo, followed by three maintenance doses (50% of loading dose) at 4, 8 and 12 weeks, with safety follow-up to week 36. The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of the study drug) and mean percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) to week 16 (full analysis set).
RESULTS
Between 13 December 2018 and 12 May 2020, 89 patients were randomly assigned to low- (n = 29) or high-dose amlitelimab (n = 30) or placebo (n = 29), of whom 88 proceeded to treatment [37 women (42%), 51 (58%) men; mean (SD) age 33.6 (11.9) years]. Amlitelimab was generally well tolerated with an unremarkable safety profile; no hypersensitivity events were reported. For the primary endpoint, the least square mean percentage change in EASI from baseline to week 16 was -80.12% [95% confidence interval (CI) -95.55 to -64.68; P = 0.009 vs. placebo] and -69.97% (95% CI -85.04 to -54.60; P = 0.07 vs. placebo) for the low- (n = 27) and high-dose (n = 27) amlitelimab groups, respectively, vs. -49.37% (95% CI -66.02 to -32.72) for placebo (n = 24). Numerically greater reductions in EASI were observed for amlitelimab vs. placebo from weeks 2 to 16.
CONCLUSIONS
Novel targeting of OX40L-expressing APCs with amlitelimab was well tolerated and resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in AD.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Female; Dermatitis, Atopic; Treatment Outcome; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Injections, Subcutaneous; Germany; Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37463508
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad240 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
Medicine and Science in Sports and... Oct 2023Our purpose was to examine the effects of 2 yr of creatine monohydrate supplementation and exercise on bone health in postmenopausal women. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
Our purpose was to examine the effects of 2 yr of creatine monohydrate supplementation and exercise on bone health in postmenopausal women.
METHODS
Two hundred and thirty-seven postmenopausal women (mean age, 59 yr) were randomized to receive creatine (0.14 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) or placebo during a resistance training (3 d·wk -1 ) and walking (6 d·wk -1 ) program for 2 yr. Our primary outcome was the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), with lumbar spine BMD and proximal femur geometric properties as the secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Compared with placebo, creatine supplementation had no effect on BMD of the femoral neck (creatine: 0.725 ± 0.110 to 0.712 ± 0.100 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.721 ± 0.102 to 0.706 ± 0.097 g·cm -2 ), total hip (creatine: 0.879 ± 0.118 to 0.872 ± 0.114 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.881 ± 0.111 to 0.873 ± 0.109 g·cm -2 ), or lumbar spine (creatine: 0.932 ± 0.133 to 0.925 ± 0.131 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.923 ± 0.145 to 0.915 ± 0.143 g·cm -2 ). Creatine significantly maintained section modulus (1.35 ± 0.29 to 1.34 ± 0.26 vs 1.34 ± 0.25 to 1.28 ± 0.23 cm 3 (placebo), P = 0.0011), predictive of bone bending strength, and buckling ratio (10.8 ± 2.6 to 11.1 ± 2.2 vs 11.0 ± 2.6 to 11.6 ± 2.7 (placebo), P = 0.011), predictive of reduced cortical bending under compressive loads, at the narrow part of the femoral neck. Creatine reduced walking time over 80 m (48.6 ± 5.6 to 47.1 ± 5.4 vs 48.3 ± 4.5 to 48.2 ± 4.9 s (placebo), P = 0.0008) but had no effect on muscular strength (i.e., one-repetition maximum) during bench press (32.1 ± 12.7 to 42.6 ± 14.1 vs 30.6 ± 10.9 to 41.4 ± 14 kg (placebo)) and hack squat (57.6 ± 21.6 to 84.4 ± 28.1 vs 56.6 ± 24.0 to 82.7 ± 25.0 kg (placebo)). In the subanalysis of valid completers, creatine increased lean tissue mass compared with placebo (40.8 ± 5.7 to 43.1 ± 5.9 vs 40.4 ± 5.3 to 42.0 ± 5.2 kg (placebo), P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS
Two years of creatine supplementation and exercise in postmenopausal women had no effect on BMD; yet, it improved some bone geometric properties at the proximal femur.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Bone Density; Creatine; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Femur Neck; Dietary Supplements; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37144634
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003202 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... Dec 2023Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common sleep disorder for which the principal treatment option, continuous positive airway pressure, is often poorly tolerated. There... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common sleep disorder for which the principal treatment option, continuous positive airway pressure, is often poorly tolerated. There is currently no approved pharmacotherapy for OSA. However, recent studies have demonstrated improvement in OSA with combined antimuscarinic and noradrenergic drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AD109, a combination of the novel antimuscarinic agent aroxybutynin and the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine, in the treatment of OSA. Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 4-week trial comparing AD109 2.5/75 mg, AD109 5/75 mg, atomoxetine 75 mg alone, and placebo (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05071612). Of 211 randomized patients, 181 were included in the prespecified efficacy analyses. Sleep was assessed by two baseline and two treatment polysomnograms. Apnea-hypopnea index with a 4% desaturation criterion (primary outcome) was reduced from a median (IQR) of 20.5 (12.3-27.2) to 10.8 (5.6-18.5) in the AD109 2.5/75 mg arm (-47.1%), from 19.4 (13.7-26.4) to 9.5 (6.1-19.3) in the AD109 5/75 mg arm (-42.9%; both < 0.0001 vs. placebo), and from 19.0 (11.8-28.8) to 11.8 (5.5-21.5) with atomoxetine alone (-38.8%; < 0.01 vs. placebo). Apnea-hypopnea index with a 4% desaturation criterion decreased from 20.1 (11.9-25.9) to 16.3 (11.1-28.9) in the placebo arm. Subjectively, there was improvement in fatigue with AD109 2.5/75 mg ( < 0.05 vs. placebo and atomoxetine). Atomoxetine taken alone decreased total sleep time ( < 0.05 vs. AD109 and placebo). The most common adverse events were dry mouth, insomnia, and urinary hesitancy. AD109 showed clinically meaningful improvement in OSA, suggesting that further development of the compound is warranted. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05071612).
Topics: Humans; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep; Polysomnography; Fatigue; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Muscarinic Antagonists
PubMed: 37812772
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202306-1036OC -
ACR Open Rheumatology Jul 2023To evaluate mepolizumab's efficacy in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) with and without a vasculitic phenotype.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate mepolizumab's efficacy in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) with and without a vasculitic phenotype.
METHODS
The MIRRA study (NCT02020889/GSK ID: 115921) included adults with relapsing/refractory EGPA and 4 or more weeks of stable oral glucocorticoids (OG). Patients received mepolizumab (300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or placebo, plus standard of care for 52 weeks. This post hoc analysis assessed EGPA vasculitic phenotype using antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) history, baseline Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), and Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) score. Coprimary endpoints included accrued remission over 52 weeks and proportion in remission at Week 36 and Week 48. Remission was defined as a BVAS equal to 0 and an OG dose of 4 or more mg/day of a prednisone equivalent. Types of relapses (vasculitis, asthma, and sino-nasal) and EGPA vasculitic characteristics (by study remission status) were also assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 136 patients were included (n = 68, mepolizumab and placebo). Irrespective of history of ANCA positivity status, baseline BVAS, or baseline VDI, the accrued remission duration and the proportion of patients in remission at Weeks 36 and 48 were greater with mepolizumab compared with placebo. With mepolizumab, remission at both Week 36 and Week 48 was achieved by 54% of patients with and 27% of patients without a history of ANCA positivity compared with 0% and 4%, respectively (placebo); 45% of patients with a BVAS of 0 and 22% of patients with BVAS of greater than 0 compared with 5% and 2%, respectively (placebo); and 29% of patients with a VDI score of less than 5 and 37% of patients with a VDI score of 5 or more compared with 6% and 0%, respectively (placebo). Mepolizumab reduced all types of relapses as compared with placebo. Baseline vasculitic characteristics (neuropathy, glomerulonephritis, alveolar hemorrhage, palpable purpura, and ANCA positivity) were generally similar among patients with and without remission.
CONCLUSION
Mepolizumab is associated with clinical benefits for patients with and without a vasculitic EGPA phenotype.
PubMed: 37312233
DOI: 10.1002/acr2.11571