Search

To evaluate efficacy and safety of BGG492 (selurampanel; an orally active, competitive AMPA glutamate receptor antagonist) in patients with moderate-to-catastrophic chronic subjective tinnitus. Study (NCT01302873) enrolled patients with subjective tinnitus based on THI severity grade 3, 4 or 5 (moderate, severe or catastrophic), and those with chronic (>6 and <36 months) tinnitus. Primary endpoints were clinical status of tinnitus using TBF-12 and tinnitus loudness using VAS after multiple dose 2-week BGG492 treatment. Safety was assessed by recording all adverse events (AEs). After a single dose of BGG492 VAS scores for tinnitus loudness (P=0.012) and tinnitus annoyance (P=0.004) were significantly reduced vs placebo. After 2 weeks treatment a significantly greater proportion of patients showed improvement of ≥4 points from baseline in TBF-12 (stringent responder definition) with BGG492 vs placebo (26.7% [n=23] vs 14% [n=12], respectively; odds ratio [OR] (90% CI):2.30 (1.10, 4.83); P=0.064), fulfilling proof-of-concept achievement criteria. No notable difference in proportion of responders to BGG492 vs placebo was observed as assessed using VAS (26.7% [n=23] vs 27.6% [n=24], respectively; OR (90% CI):0.94 (0.52, 1.67); P=0.848). Dizziness was the most frequently reported AE in 50% [n=21] and 31.5% [n=17] patients on BGG492 100 and 50mg TID, respectively vs 9.6% [n=9] on placebo. In conclusion, BGG492 showed reduction of both tinnitus loudness and annoyance after a single dose and reduction of tinnitus handicap after 2 weeks of treatment in patients with chronic subjective tinnitus, thereby supporting further clinical investigation of AMPA receptor antagonists with an improved benefit/risk ratio. A dose of 100mg TID BGG492 showed higher efficacy but somewhat lower tolerability compared to 50mg TID., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest K.K. is an employee and shareholder of Novartis Pharma AG. D.J. was an employee of Novartis Pharma AG during the study, and is an employee of NodThera Inc., Lexington, MA. F.W. has no conflict of interest. K.A.-E. is employee of QPS-Netherlands B.V., which received funding for the study conduct from Novartis Pharma AG, and various pharmaceutical companies for execution of phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. C.D. was an employee of Novartis Pharma AG during the study. O.S. is an employee and shareholder of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. C.U.P. was an employee of Novartis Pharma AG during the study, now retired. B.L. received a consultancy honorarium from Novartis for his contribution to the study., (© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Expert Consensus Guidelines recommend topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line medications for osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain, but several voluminous daily applications are required to achieve efficacy. There is a need to develop new and improved topical analgesics with a faster onset, longer duration of action, and the requirement to apply less gel. This trial investigated the safety and efficacy of a new 3.06% diclofenac gel (AMZ001) in subjects with knee OA., Methods: In total, 444 subjects (AMZ001 twice daily (BID) [n = 121], AMZ001 once daily (QD) + placebo QD [n = 121], placebo BID [n = 121], or Voltaren 1% 4-times daily [n = 81]) were enrolled. All except Voltaren 1% (single-blinded) were applied topically in a double-blind manner for a total of 4-weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 4 in the WOMAC pain sub-score in the target knee. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included additional efficacy measures (WOMAC total score, WOMAC function and stiffness sub-scores, WOMAC pain weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing sub-scores, ICOAP, chair-stand test, OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, PGA, WPAI, EQ-5D, rescue medication use, satisfaction questionnaire) and safety., Results: Treatment with AMZ001 QD was effective at reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -4.61 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.09, -0.12]; p = 0.0440); however, BID application was not (ETD: -3.76 [95% CI: -8.21, 0.68]; p = 0.0969). For several secondary endpoints, changes from baseline to week 4 conferred nominally statistically significant improvements in favor of AMZ001 vs placebo, including PGA score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: -0.61 [95% CI: -1.11, -0.11]; p = 0.0162; AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: -0.63 [95% CI: -1.13, -0.13]; p = 0.0134), WPAI overall work impairment score (AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: -10.44 [95% CI: -20.84, -0.04]; p = 0.0492), and EQ-5D VAS score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: 4.70 [95% CI: 0.55, 8.85]; p = 0.0264). Post-hoc analysis excluding 11-14 subjects per group with pain scores that decreased between screening and baseline suggests a consistent effect of both AMZ001 QD (ETD: -5.84 [95% CI: -10.71, -0.97]; p = 0.0189) and BID (ETD: -5.35 [95% CI: -10.16, -0.54]; p = 0.0292) in reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo. In general, treatment satisfaction was high, as measured by the satisfaction questionnaire. The frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs) was greatest in the placebo group. Most AEs (>99%) were of mild or moderate severity. There were no serious AEs. There were no notable effects of any treatment on vital signs, ECGs, physical examination findings, or other laboratory assessments., Conclusions: Treatment with AMZ001 BID for 4 weeks improved WOMAC pain sub-scores; however, only QD application conferred nominally statistically significant improvements vs placebo. AMZ001 was generally well tolerated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Laetitia Delpy, Caroline Derne and Dario Carrara are employed by Ferring Pharmaceuticals and conduct work for Amzell B.V. Lee S Simon is a consultant to Amzell B.V. Asger R. Bihlet and Inger Byrjalsen are employed by Nordic Bioscience Clinical Development A/S which conducted the current trial project for Amzell B.V., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effects of siponimod (BAF312) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a monophasic oral contraceptive (OC)., Materials and Methods: This was a phase 1, single-center, open-label, multipledose, single-sequence study in healthy females. Eligible subjects (n = 23) were exposed sequentially to two treatment periods: period 1 (OC alone) and period 2 (OC + siponimod) in two consecutive menstrual periods. PK parameters were assessed on day 21 of both treatment periods. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol, and progesterone concentrations were measured at baseline and days 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23 of each period. Largest ovarian follicle size and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentration were measured and Hoogland score was calculated at baseline and day 21 of each period. Safety and tolerability of siponimod was also assessed., Results: Co-administration (OC + siponimod) increased the AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) of levonorgestrel by 28% and 18%, respectively, but had no effect on the PK of ethinylestradiol. No significant changes in estradiol, FSH, and LH were noted with co-administration vs. OC alone. Progesterone levels < 5 nmol/L, largest follicle size < 10 mm, and Hoogland score of 1 on day 21 indicated lack of ovulation in all subjects during co-administration. Co-administration was well tolerated., Conclusion: In conclusion, PK and PD of the OC were not altered to a clinically significant extent and contraceptive efficacy was maintained with co-administration. Hence, OC as a contraceptive measure can be safely co-administered with siponimod.