Search

Abstract Background To assess the long-term pediatric safety of 2 doses of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma and compare them with that of beclomethasone dipropionate administered via a metered dose inhaler (BDP-MDI) in the treatment of persistent asthma. Both MF-DPI doses tested are twice the approved pediatric dosage of 100 μg once-daily (QD) for children aged 4–11 years. Methods Children (N = 233) aged 4–11 years were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment with MF-DPI 200 μg QD AM, MF-DPI 100 μg twice daily (BID), or BDP-MDI 168 μg BID. Patients had used inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) daily for ≥ 30 days before the screening visit and were on stable ICS doses for ≥ 2 weeks before screening. The primary safety variable was the incidence of adverse events. Secondary safety variables were laboratory tests (including cortisol concentrations), vital signs, and physical examination. Results The incidence of adverse events was similar in all 3 treatment groups. The most frequently reported adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, reported by 47%–49% of the MF-DPI-treated patients and 51% of the BPD-treated patients. Most adverse events were considered unrelated to study drug. The most frequently reported related adverse events were headache (MF-DPI 200 μg QD AM, 8%; MF-DPI 100 μg BID, 4%; BDP-MDI 168 μg BID, 2%) and oral candidiasis (4% in each treatment group). No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, including plasma cortisol, vital signs, or physical examinations were noted in any treatment group. Conclusion Both MF-DPI doses were well tolerated, with no unusual or unexpected adverse events or safety concerns, and had a similar adverse event profile to that of BDP-MDI 168 μg BID.

Background: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies., Methods: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete., Findings: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab., Interpretation: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies., Funding: Novartis Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MM is or recently was a speaker, an adviser for, or has received research funding from Amgen, Allakos, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Celldex, FAES, Genentech, GI Innovation, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Menarini, Novartis, Moxie, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Third Harmonic, UCB, and Uriach. LFE is or recently was a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, and AbbVie, and has received research support from Novartis and Sanofi. AMG-A reports roles as a medical adviser for Uriach Pharma, Sanofi, Genentech, Novartis, FAES, GSK, AMGEN, Thermo Fisher, and has received research grants supported by Uriach Pharma, Novartis, and Instituto Carlos III- FEDER; she also participates in educational activities for Uriach Pharma, Novartis, Genentech, Menarini, LEO-PHARMA, GSK, MSD, Almirall, AVENE, and Sanofi. GS has received research support from Aimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, DBV technologies, Genentech, Kedrion, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Merck, and Schering-Plough; and is a medical adviser or has received payment for lectures from Merck, Novartis, CSL Behring, Pfizer, Anaphylaxis Canada, the Allergy Asthma and Immunology Society of Ontario, and the Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network. MH has received lecture or consultation fees from TAIHO Pharmaceutical, Novartis, MSD, Teikoku Seiyaku, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Kaken Pharmaceutical, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Uriach, Sanofi, and Kyowa-Kirin and GI Innovation. SS received grant, research, or clinical trial support from the National Institutes of Health, ITN, Novartis, Regeneron, and is a consultant or advisery board member for Genentech, Novartis, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Allakos, Eli Lily, and Gossamer Bio. CG has recently been an adviser for Celltrion and has participated in an advisery board for Sanofi. DF is, or recently was, a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, AbbVie, Takeda, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, and Roche. DR received fees as lecturer and advisery board member for Novartis, Leo, Lilly, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Sanofi, Menarini, Genesis pharma, and AbbVie. FB has received payment or honoraria as speaker fees from Novartis. GWC reports having received research grants, as well as being a lecturer or having received advisery board fees, from Menarini, Alk-Abello', Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GSK, Hal Allergy, Mylan, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes-Greer, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Valeas, and Vibor-Pharma. HR reports receiving speaker's fees, advisery board fees or funds for research to the institution from Novartis Pharma, Pharming, Sanofi-Genzyme, Third Harmonic, and Leo Pharma. CI reports having received research or clinical trial support, or fees for lectures from Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Stallergenes Greer. JCS reports receiving fees for being consultant or advisery board member for Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trevi, UCB, and Vifor; for being speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Alvotech, Janssen-Cilag, Eli-Lilly, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Genzyme; for being the investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celtrion, Galderma, Galapagos, Helm, Kliniksa, Incyte, InfraRX, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Medimmune, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, UCB, Teva, and Trevi. JAB reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Allakos, Amgen, Celldex, Genentech, and Sanofi Regeneron outside the submitted work. JGP has received travel support, speakers' honoraria, and educational grants from Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Takeda, Pharming, and CSL Behring. KK is or recently was a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda, and A Menarini, and has received research grants from Novartis. LA is or recently was a speaker, adviser, or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, OM-Pharma, Regeneron, Shire, Takeda, and Sanofi-Genzyme. PS is or recently was a speaker, adviser, or has received research funding from AbbVie, Allergika, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Biocryst, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, CSL-Behring, Eli-Lilly, Galderma, Hexal, Janssen, Klinge, Klosterfrau, LEO-Pharma, LETI-Pharma, L'Oreal, Medice, Novartis, Octapharma, Pfizer, Pflüger, Pharming, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Shire, Takeda, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, und UCB Pharma. RS is Director and Founder of Samson Medical Pty, and serves on the pharmaceutical advisery board of Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Leo Pharmaceutical, and reports being on the speaker bureau of Pfizer, AbbVie, and Novartis. He has also been principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Aerotech, Akesobio, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Ascend AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotherapeutics Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb, Celgene, Coherus BioSciences, Connect, Demira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Oncobiologics, Pfizer, Principia, Regeneron, Roche, Reistone Biopharma, Samson Clinical, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sun Pharma UCB, Valeant, and Zai Labs. He is President of the Australasian Hair and Wool Research Society, Vice President of the International Society of Dermatology, and The International Academy of Dermatology. SG has consulted or advised for Novartis and IgGenix. SFT is or recently was a speaker, adviser for, or has received research funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, UCB, and Union Therapeutics. TT received clinical trial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Genentech, and GSK. YMY has received research or clinical trial support from Novartis, Amgen, Yuhan, Takeda, and Daewoong ABa, DM, and ES are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey, NJ, USA. EH is an employee of Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, China. VV is an employee of Novartis Healthcare Private, Hyderabad, India. ABu, KL, MP, and TS are employees of Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland. KG, JL, and OU report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Basal subtype cancers are deadly malignancies but the molecular events driving tumor lethality are not completely understood. Ataxia-telangiectasia group D complementing gene (ATDC, also known as TRIM29), is highly expressed and drives tumor formation and invasion in human bladder cancers but the factor(s) regulating its expression in bladder cancer are unknown. Molecular subtyping of bladder cancer has identified an aggressive basal subtype, which shares molecular features of basal/squamous tumors arising in other organs and is defined by activation of a TP63-driven gene program. Here, we demonstrate that ATDC is linked with expression of TP63 and highly expressed in basal bladder cancers. We find that TP63 binds to transcriptional regulatory regions of ATDC and KRT14 directly, increasing their expression, and that ATDC and KRT14 execute a TP63-driven invasive program. In vivo, ATDC is required for TP63-induced bladder tumor invasion and metastasis. These results link TP63 and the basal gene expression program to ATDC and to aggressive tumor behavior. Defining ATDC as a molecular determinant of aggressive, basal cancers may lead to improved biomarkers and therapeutic approaches.

Bladder cancer is a common and deadly malignancy but its treatment has advanced little due to poor understanding of the factors and pathways that promote disease. ATDC/TRIM29 is a highly expressed gene in several lethal tumor types, including bladder tumors, but its role as a pathogenic driver has not been established. Here we show that overexpression of ATDC in vivo is sufficient to drive both noninvasive and invasive bladder carcinoma development in transgenic mice. ATDC-driven bladder tumors were indistinguishable from human bladder cancers, which displayed similar gene expression signatures. Clinically, ATDC was highly expressed in bladder tumors in a manner associated with invasive growth behaviors. Mechanistically, ATDC exerted its oncogenic effects by suppressing miR-29 and subsequent upregulation of DNMT3A, leading to DNA methylation and silencing of the tumor suppressor PTEN. Taken together, our findings established a role for ATDC as a robust pathogenic driver of bladder cancer development, identified downstream effector pathways, and implicated ATDC as a candidate biomarker and therapeutic target., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The initiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is linked to activating mutations in KRAS. However, in PDA mouse models, expression of oncogenic mutant KRAS during development gives rise to tumors only after a prolonged latency or following induction of pancreatitis. Here we describe a novel mouse model expressing ataxia telangiectasia group D complementing gene (ATDC, also known as TRIM29 [tripartite motif 29]) that, in the presence of oncogenic KRAS, accelerates pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) formation and the development of invasive and metastatic cancers. We found that ATDC up-regulates CD44 in mouse and human PanIN lesions via activation of β-catenin signaling, leading to the induction of an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype characterized by expression of Zeb1 and Snail1. We show that ATDC is up-regulated by oncogenic Kras in a subset of PanIN cells that are capable of invading the surrounding stroma. These results delineate a novel molecular pathway for EMT in pancreatic tumorigenesis, showing that ATDC is a proximal regulator of EMT., (© 2015 Wang et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.)

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by therapeutic resistance for which the basis is poorly understood. Here, we report that the DNA and p53-binding protein ATDC/TRIM29, which is highly expressed in PDAC, plays a critical role in DNA damage signaling and radioresistance in pancreatic cancer cells. Ataxia-telangiectasia group D-associated gene (ATDC) mediated resistance to ionizing radiation in vitro and in vivo in mouse xenograft assays. ATDC was phosphorylated directly by MAPKAP kinase 2 (MK2) at Ser550 in an ATM-dependent manner. Phosphorylation at Ser-550 by MK2 was required for the radioprotective function of ATDC. Our results identify a DNA repair pathway leading from MK2 and ATM to ATDC, suggesting its candidacy as a therapeutic target to radiosensitize PDAC and improve the efficacy of DNA-damaging treatment., (©2014 AACR.)

Background: To assess the long-term pediatric safety of 2 doses of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma and compare them with that of beclomethasone dipropionate administered via a metered dose inhaler (BDP-MDI) in the treatment of persistent asthma. Both MF-DPI doses tested are twice the approved pediatric dosage of 100 microg once-daily (QD) for children aged 4-11 years., Methods: Children (N = 233) aged 4-11 years were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment with MF-DPI 200 microg QD AM, MF-DPI 100 microg twice daily (BID), or BDP-MDI 168 microg BID. Patients had used inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) daily for > or = 30 days before the screening visit and were on stable ICS doses for > or = 2 weeks before screening. The primary safety variable was the incidence of adverse events. Secondary safety variables were laboratory tests (including cortisol concentrations), vital signs, and physical examination., Results: The incidence of adverse events was similar in all 3 treatment groups. The most frequently reported adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, reported by 47%-49% of the MF-DPI-treated patients and 51% of the BPD-treated patients. Most adverse events were considered unrelated to study drug. The most frequently reported related adverse events were headache (MF-DPI 200 microg QD AM, 8%; MF-DPI 100 microg BID, 4%; BDP-MDI 168 microg BID, 2%) and oral candidiasis (4% in each treatment group). No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, including plasma cortisol, vital signs, or physical examinations were noted in any treatment group., Conclusion: Both MF-DPI doses were well tolerated, with no unusual or unexpected adverse events or safety concerns, and had a similar adverse event profile to that of BDP-MDI 168 microg BID.

Background: Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR)., Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment., Results: Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF., Conclusion: In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Three open-label extension trials evaluated the safety of budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS; Pulmicort Respules) in 670 children (8 months-9 years of age) with mild-to-severe persistent asthma. Patients were randomized to receive either BIS or conventional asthma therapy (CAT) for 52 weeks. The percentage of patients who discontinued because of clinical adverse events was low and similar among the CAT (0.4%) and BIS (0.7%) groups. After adjusting for length of time in the studies, there were no clinically relevant differences between the BIS and CAT groups in the type, incidence, or intensity of adverse events; vital signs or physical examination outcomes; or changes in clinical laboratory evaluations or oral fungal cultures.

Background: Inhaled corticosteroid therapy in severe persistent asthma has been shown to reduce or eliminate oral corticosteroid (OCS) use while retaining effective asthma control., Objective: We sought to evaluate the ability of mometasone furoate (MF) delivered by means of dry powder inhaler to reduce daily oral prednisone requirements in OCS-dependent patients with severe persistent asthma., Methods: We performed a 12-week, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial (21 centers, 132 patients) comparing 2 doses of MF (400 and 800 microg administered twice daily) with placebo, followed by a 9-month open-label phase in which 128 patients received treatment with MF., Results: At the endpoint of the double-blind trial, MF 400 and 800 mg twice daily reduced daily OCS requirements by 46.0% and 23.9%, respectively, whereas placebo increased OCS requirements by 164.4% (P <.01). Oral steroids were eliminated in 40%, 37%, and 0% of patients in the MF 400 and 800 mg twice daily and placebo groups, respectively. Pulmonary function and quality of life significantly increased for MF-treated patients. Further reductions in OCS requirements were achieved with long-term MF treatment in the open-label phase., Conclusion: MF inhaled orally as a dry powder is an effective alternative to systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe persistent asthma.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study including 481 children at 37 centers in the United States demonstrated the efficacy and safety of budesonide inhalation suspension in doses of 0.25 mg once daily, 0.25 mg twice daily, 0.5 mg twice daily, and 1.0 mg daily in infants and young children with persistent asthma. The retrospective analysis presented here compares the efficacy of treatment with the suspension administered through a face mask or mouthpiece. All patients receiving budesonide inhalation suspension via face mask or mouthpiece showed clinical improvements in nighttime and daytime asthma symptoms as compared with administration of a placebo. The improvements were of similar magnitude as those observed in an analysis of all patients treated. Improvements in nighttime asthma symptoms were statistically significant with budesonide at 0.25 mg daily (p = 0.040), 0.25 mg twice daily (p = 0.008), and 0.5 mg twice daily (p = 0.046) delivered by face mask. In patients using mouthpieces, nighttime asthma symptoms improved significantly in the 0.25-mg twice-daily (p = 0.005) and 1.0-mg daily (p = 0.035) groups. Patients receiving budesonide at 0.5 mg twice daily via a face mask improved significantly in daytime asthma symptoms (p = 0.009). The use of breakthrough medication was reduced in patients receiving budesonide via face masks or mouthpieces relative to placebo, and treatment was well tolerated in all study groups. This retrospective analysis suggests that nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension can be administered effectively by either face mask or mouthpiece to young children with persistent asthma.