Tag: clinical trials

Categories : Cancer Mental HealthTags :

How do Patients Who Exit Clinical Trials Early Feel?

On By ModernMedia
Source: JD Mason on Unsplash

A new study has helped researchers understand the experiences of people who withdraw from clinical cancer trials.

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide patients with an opportunity to receive experimental drugs, tests, and/or procedures that may lead to remissions. Such opportunities can be a great benefit for those who took part, but there is little known of the experiences of participants who withdraw from CCTs.

To address this, a first-of-its-kind study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (Penn Nursing) was conducted to better understand the post-trial needs of these patients and define responsible transitions when patients exit CCTs.

“Understanding the post-trial needs of patients with cancer and their families represents a measure of ethical respect of the many contributions that patients with cancer make to advancing our scientific knowledge and finding treatments that save lives,” said the study’s lead researcher, Connie M Ulrich, the Lillian S Brunner Chair in Medical and Surgical Nursing, professor of nursing, professor of medical ethics and health policy.

The study revealed three important areas:

  • Patients exiting CCTs feel intense symptoms, emotions, and awareness that their life spans are short and options seem limited.
  • The limited discussions with patients who are exiting on their immediate post-trial care needs can result in many feeling that there is no clear path forward.
  • Good communication that deliberately includes attention to post-trial needs throughout the CCT is needed to help scared and disappointed patients navigate their next steps.

The study is set for publication on the JAMA Network.

Source: University of Pennsylvania

Categories : COVIDTags :

AstraZeneca Updates its US Trial Results

On By ModernMedia

AstraZeneca issued updated phase III trial data for its COVID vaccine on Wednesday after facing questions on its accuracy of its preliminary US study.

The company now says its vaccine is 76% effective in protecting against symptomatic cases of virus. A release issued on Monday reported a symptomatic efficacy rate of 79%, but the next day, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said it had been informed the company may have included information from its US results that provided an “incomplete view of the efficacy data.”

The updated report still says that the vaccine is 100% effective against severe disease and hospitalisation. A number of US health officials have criticised the company for what seemed like cherry-picking of data in an effort to improve the results’ appearance.

At the time, AstraZeneca said the figures were based on a “pre-specified interim analysis” and promised it would share an updated analysis in the coming days.

Dr Anthony Fauci, White House chief medical advisor and director at the NIAID, was more supportive of the company, calling the situation “unfortunate” and said it was likely AstraZeneca would issue a modified statement.

“This is really what you call an unforced error because the fact is this is very likely a very good vaccine,” Fauci told ABC’s Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday. “This kind of thing does … really cast some doubt about the vaccines and maybe contribute to the hesitancy. It was not necessary.”

The BBC’s medical editor, Fergus Walsh, was told the results may have been rushed out of a desire to address the safety concerns surrounding possible blood clots. These had resulted in AstraZeneca vaccines being withdrawn from circulation in some European countries.

The updated results include 190 symptomatic cases out of over 32 000 participants — about 50 more symptomatic cases than the data set released on Monday.

The findings suggest the vaccine is more effective in patients aged 65 and older, with a newly reported efficacy rate of 85% for that population, up from 80% stated earlier.

AstraZeneca reiterated that there were no safety concerns with the vaccine and that it was well tolerated.

Source: NBC News

Categories : New Compounds and Treatments Skin ConditionsTags :

New JAK1 Inhibitor Abrocitinib Effective in Atopic Dermatitis

On By ModernMedia

A phase III trial showed that a new oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, abrocitinib, bettered placebo, at higher doses, also outperformed dupilumab in treating signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis.

More patients on the higher dose of abrocitinib had an Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI-75) response (75% improvement from baseline) as compared with the other three randomised groups, reported Hernan Valdez, MD, of Pfizer in New York City, and colleagues.

“In the JADE COMPARE trial, abrocitinib at a dose of either 200 mg or 100 mg once daily resulted in significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis than placebo on the basis of IGA and EASI-75 responses at weeks 12 and 16,” the authors stated. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different from dupilumab with respect to the three key secondary endpoints of the trial.”

“The 200-mg dose of abrocitinib was superior to dupilumab with respect to itch response at week 2 but not to an EASI-75 response at week 16; no conclusion could be drawn regarding the difference between the 200-mg dose of abrocitinib and dupilumab with respect to an IGA response… . Longer and larger trials are necessary to determine the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and to compare it with other JAK inhibitors and with biologic agents used for the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” they added.

Several oral JAK inhibitors besides abrocitinib being clinically evaluatied for AD. According to the authors, targeting JAK1 results in inhibition of signaling by interleukin (IL)-4, IL-13, and other cytokines involved in AD. However, there is a lack of data on head-to-head trials of JAK inhibitors.

Despite the very positive reception of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of AD, there have been some studies which raised safety concerns. Tofacitinib, for example, has been associated with a higher rate of malignancies and major adverse cardiovascular events.

In this phase III trial, 838 patients with moderate or severe AD were randomised to abrocitinib 100 mg or 200 mg, dupilumab, or placebo. The trial had two primary endpoints: investigator’s global assessment (IGA) response at week 12 and EASI-75 response at week 12. Both endpoints were compared versus placebo. Secondary analyses included comparisons of itch response at week 2 versus placebo and dupilumab and IGA and EASI-75 responses versus placebo at week 16.

More patients on either of the two doses of abrocitinib had IGA responses at week 12 compared to placebo. The proportion of patients with an EASI-75 response at 12 weeks was 70.3% with abrocitinib 200mg, 58.7% for abrocitinib 100mg, 58.1% for dupilumab, and 27.1% for placebo. All treatment groups performed significantly better than placebo.

At week 2, 49.1% of patients had itch response with the higher dose of abrocitinib, 31.8% with the lower dose, 26.4% with dupilumab, and 13.8% with placebo. The 200-mg abrocitinib group was superior to dupilumab. 

Adverse events (AEs) occurred more often with 200-mg abrocitinib as compared with the other three groups (61.9% vs 50.0% to 53.4%), the most common of which was nausea.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information:  Bieber T, et al “Abrocitinib versus placebo or dupilumab for atopic dermatitis” N Engl J Med 2021; DOI: 10.1056/NEJM0a2019380.

Categories : COVIDTags :

Clinical Trial for Ivermectin Delivers Disappointing Results

On By ModernMedia

A randomised clinical trial in Colombia for ivermectin treatment in mild COVID returned disappointing results.

An anti-parasitic normally used for livestock, ivermectin has gathered considerable attention as a possible COVID treatment in recent months, especially locally, with stocks containing the product depleted in the last month. There are no ivermectin-containing products in South Africa for human use. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority is of the view that the evidence for ivermectin is currently inconclusive.

“To our knowledge, preliminary reports of other randomized trials of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 with positive results have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals,” the researchers wrote.

  The randomised, double-blind, single-center study took place from July 15 to December 21, 2020. Patients were assigned to either receive an oral dose of 300 μg/kg of body weight per day of ivermectin or placebo, for five days. Follow-up took place on days 2, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 21. The primary trial outcome was resolution of symptoms within 21 days.  

However, the study was not without its share of problems. The initial primary outcome was time from randomisation until worsening of symptoms by two points on an ordinal scale, but few patients reached this endpoint in the expected time. This meant the sample size needed to maintain sufficient power was “unattainable.” To accommodate this, the primary endpoint was changed to time from randomisation to symptom resolution by day 21, retaining the original sample size.

To make matters worse, a labelling error occurred, where ivermectin was mistakenly given to all patients from September 29 to October 15, so the protocol was amended, with these patients excluded from the primary analysis. The researchers then recruited more patients to retain the originally calculated study power.

Despite these problems, the researchers said the findings remained valid within the confines of its other limitations. Limitations to the study, the researchers said, included that it was not conducted or completed according to the original design; that it may have been underpowered to detect a smaller, clinically meaningful reduction in the primary endpoint; and virological assessments were not included, only clinical characteristics.

Larger trials would be needed “to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes,” concluded the researchers.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information: López-Medina E, et al “Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19 — A Randomized Clinical Trial” JAMA 2021; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2031.3071.

Categories : Mental Health New Compounds and TreatmentsTags :

Neurocrine’s Anticipated Schizophrenia Drug Flops in Clinical Trial

On By ModernMedia

Pharmaeceutical company Neurocrine’s anticipated schizophrenia drug, luvadaxistat, failed to have an impact on negative symptoms in a key clinical trial, but still showed promising cognitive benefits.

Neurocrine Biosciences had licensed seven of Takeda’s psychiatry drugs last year for over $2 billion. Luvadaxistat was the furthest along, having entered Phase 2 testing in 2017.

The experimental drug is supposed to help schizophrenia patients cope with “negative symptoms”—a range of difficult-to-treat conditions such as lack of motivation, trouble communicating and limited emotion. The drug is designed to block an enzyme that degrades a certain kind of amino acid important for brain function.

However, according to results from a mid-stage study, in comparison to placebo, patients treated with the drug didn’t perform significantly better, as measured by a scale that assesses the severity of negative symptoms.

While there was excitement around the science behind luvadaxistat, Wall Street analysts lost much of their optimism in the programme last month, after Concert Pharmaceuticals halted development of CTP-692, an experimental drug based on the same mechanism, after trials also saw disappointing results. 

Nevertheless, there remains a path ahead for luvadaxistat as Neurocrine is setting up to analyse the drug’s efficacy for cognitive benefits, as it appears that these results at least were in line with scientific predictions.

Source: BioPharma Dive

Categories : COVID VaccinesTags :

Questions Raised over Oxford’s Unusual Vaccine Regimen

On By ModernMedia

The recent announcement of the Oxford’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccine trial being 70% effective up to 90% effective has raised some pointed questions.

The trial had two treatment arms, one receiving two full doses of the AZD1222 vaccine and a half dose plus a full dose, with the doses being administered 28 days apart. The “half dose then full dose”  treatment arm reported the 90% protection. The problem was that the trial was never meant to have such an arm. 

It was noticed that some participants were only receiving a half dose because they were experiencing fewer effects than expected such as arm pain and headache. This was subsequently corrected so that they would still receive the full dose on the second administration.

Of particular concern is that the “90% effectiveness” is based on a much smaller subset of the trial participants, with a correspondingly higher statistical uncertainty. So much so that there is statistical overlap with their lower effectiveness of 62% quoted for the two full doses. Furthermore, the participants were from the initial stages of the vaccine trial, where they were aged 18-55 and therefore have little applicability to the results of the main trial which included older age groups as well. 

The details of exactly why the half-measure doses came to be administered in the first place have not been revealed by Oxford or AstraZeneca. Meanwhile in the US, a Phase III of the trial is being rolled out with 40 000 participants, and the “half dose then full dose” regimen may be included – however, uncertainty about it and whether it isn’t a statistical fluke will have to be cleared up first.

Source: Ars Technica