Higher efficacy of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg versus placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis.
ABSTRACT: Background:The clinical efficacy of rupatadine in terms of responders has not been previously explored in perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods:This pooled analysis included data from 6 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in PAR patients treated with rupatadine 10 mg or 20 mg, or placebo. Participants were aged???18 years, with diagnosis of PAR and a Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS)???5. We evaluated the T4NSS and Total 5 Symptom Score (T5SS) for 28 days of treatment, the responder proportion (50% and 75% response), and the time to response. Results:Efficacy data from 1486 patients were analysed: 585 received placebo, 682 rupatadine 10 mg, and 219 rupatadine 20 mg. Compared with placebo, rupatadine promoted greater symptom improvements and higher responder proportions (50% and 75% response) for T4NSS and T5SS over 28 days. Symptom improvements and responder proportions were higher in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group. The time to response was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group for T4NSS (16 and 9 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively) and for T5SS (13 and 8 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively). Conclusions:Rupatadine was efficacious in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms, showing high responder proportions. The faster and stronger effect of rupatadine 20 mg may suggest its use in patients with severe PAR or not responding to the standard dose.
Project description:Background:Different clinical trials showed the superior efficacy of rupatadine compared to placebo at improving seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, but no study has assessed if the response promoted is clinically meaningful. Methods:This study is a pooled analysis of data of seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAR studies comparing responder proportions upon treatment with rupatadine (10 or 20 mg) or placebo. We evaluated the following symptom scores at baseline (Visit 1) and over 14 days of treatment: Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS), Total 2 Ocular Symptom Score (T2OSS) and Total 6 Symptom Score (T6SS). The proportion of responders (50% and 75% response) and the time to response were compared between groups on days 7 (Visit 2) and 14 (Visit 3). Responder rates were compared between groups on days 7 and 14 for the complete/near-to-complete response for T4NSS (TN4SS score???2 and each symptom score???1) and T6SS (T6SS score???3 and each symptom score???1). Results:Data from 1470 patients were analyzed: 332 treated with placebo, 662 with rupatadine 10 mg and 476 with rupatadine 20 mg. The reduction in T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS over 14 days of treatment relative to baseline was statistically higher in rupatadine groups vs the placebo group, with greater improvements in the 20 mg group. A statistically higher proportion of patients reached the 50% and 75% response for T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS in rupatadine groups compared to the placebo group across the visits. Among rupatadine-treated patients, those receiving 20 mg compared favourably for both cut-off responses. The time to achieve a proportion of responders was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group than in the rupatadine 10 mg and placebo groups for all the symptom scores. The number of patients who achieved a complete/near-to-complete response for both symptom scores was higher in rupatadine groups than in the placebo group, with higher proportions in the 20 mg group. Conclusions:This responder analysis confirms the superior efficacy of rupatadine vs placebo to treat SAR. Rupatadine promoted higher proportions of responders according to stringent response criteria and in a dose-dependent manner, with faster and higher response rates in the 20 mg group.
Project description:Objective: Long-term safety and efficacy of 10- and 20-mg rupatadine in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) were investigated in a 52-week open-label study (JapicCTI-152952, clinicaltrials.jp). Methods: The rupatadine dose was fixed to 10 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks. Thereafter, the study investigator was allowed to increase the dosage to 20 mg if the response was insufficient. Safety was evaluated on the basis of treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory findings, and vital sign measurements. The primary efficacy endpoint was changed from baseline to Week 2 in the total 4 nasal symptom score. Secondary efficacy endpoints included changes over time in ocular symptoms, patient and physician clinical overall impression, and patient quality-of-life. Results: Seventy-two immunoglobulin E positive patients (mean age = 32.1 years), consisting of 58 adults (age ≥ 18 years) and 14 adolescents (12-17 years), were enrolled. Ninety-four treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 48 patients (66.7%), including nine adverse drug reactions in nine patients (12.5%). The most frequently reported adverse drug reaction was somnolence (9.7%). The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints demonstrated a statistically significant clinical benefit with rupatadine. The rupatadine dose was increased from 10 to 20 mg in 36 patients (50.0%), which resulted in better symptom management. Conclusions: Rupatadine 10- and 20-mg once-daily doses were well tolerated in long-term use. Updosing to 20 mg is a reasonable option in PAR patients whose symptoms cannot be controlled effectively by the 10-mg dose.
Project description:Background:There are few clinical trials that assess the efficacy of antihistamines in very young children. Rupatadine is a second-generation antihistamine indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and urticaria. In this study, AR symptoms were evaluated before and after daily 1 mg/mL rupatadine oral solution administration in 2-5-year-old children. Methods:A multicenter open-label study was carried out in 2-5-year-old children with AR. Safety assessments were collected during the study including spontaneous adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiogram (QTc interval). Additionally, evaluations of Total Five Symptoms Score (T5SS, including: nasal congestion; sneezing; rhinorrhoea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; and itchy, watery, and red eyes) were analyzed. Symptoms were evaluated by parents/legal guardian before and after 4 weeks of rupatadine administration, dosed according to body weight. Results:A total of 44 children received the study treatment. Only 15 adverse events were reported. All of them were of mild intensity and considered not related to the study treatment. No patient exceeded the standard parameter of >450 ms in the last visit, for the QTc interval on their electrocardiograms. From a maximum score value of 15, T5SS values at Day 14 (6.35) and Day 28 (5.42) were both statistically significant different (p<0.001) from the baseline T5SS value (mean 8.65), with a reduction of 26.6% and 37.4%, respectively. All individual symptoms, including nasal congestion, showed also a decrease from baseline at both 14 and 28 days. Conclusion:Rupatadine 1 mg/mL oral solution was found to be safe in 2-5-year-old children, correlating with an improvement of AR symptoms, overall and each individually, after a daily dose administration. With this study, we enlarge the available information in this very young pediatric patients' group, in which there is a general lack of clinical evidence.
Project description:Currently there are no specific treatments available for acute dengue infection. We considered that rupatadine, a platelet-activating factor receptor inhibitor, might modulate dengue-associated vascular leak. The effects of rupatadine were assessed in vitro, and in a dengue model, which showed that rupatadine significantly reduced endothelial permeability by dengue sera in vitro, and significantly inhibited the increased haematocrit in dengue-infected mice with dose-dependency. We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 183 adult patients in Sri Lanka with acute dengue, which showed that rupatadine up to 40?mg daily appeared safe and well-tolerated with similar proportions of adverse events with rupatadine and placebo. Although the primary end-point of a significant reduction in fluid leakage (development of pleural effusions or ascites) was not met, post-hoc analyses revealed small but significant differences in several parameters on individual illness days - higher platelet counts and lower aspartate-aminotransferase levels on day 7 in the rupatadine group compared to the placebo group, and smaller effusions on day 8 in the subgroup of patients with pleural effusions. However, due to the small sample size and range of recruitment time, the potential beneficial effects of rupatadine require further evaluation in large studies focused on recruitment during the early febrile phase.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Rupatadine is a marketed second generation antihistamine, with anti-PAF activity, indicated for symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety and tolerability of rupatadine in healthy Japanese subjects after single and multiple oral doses.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 27 male and female healthy Japanese subjects were administered single and multiple escalating rupatadine dose of 10, 20 and 40 mg or placebo. Blood samples were collected at different time points for PK measurements and subjects were assessed for safety and tolerability. The effect of rupatadine on cognitive functioning was evaluated by means of computerized cognitive tests: rapid visual information processing (RVP), reaction time (RT), spatial working memory (SWM) and visual analogue scales (VAS).<h4>Results</h4>Exposure to rupatadine as measured by Cmax and AUC was found to increase in a dose dependent manner over the dose range of 10-40 mg for both single and multiple dose administration. The safety assessments showed that all treatment related side effects were of mild intensity and there were no serious adverse events (SAEs) or withdrawals due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in this study. The therapeutic dose of rupatadine did not show any CNS impairment in any of the cognitive tests.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study demonstrated that rupatadine is safe and well tolerated by Japanese healthy subjects. The PK-PD profile confirmed previous experience with rupatadine.
Project description:The mixed ?- and ?-opioid receptor agonist and ?-opioid receptor antagonist, eluxadoline, is licensed in the USA for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D), based on the results of two large Phase 3 clinical trials.To understand the time course of treatment benefits with eluxadoline by comparing responder rates over the first month of treatment with responder rates over longer treatment intervals.In this post hoc analysis of two Phase 3 studies, composite and adequate relief (AR) responder rates were calculated over month 1 and patients were stratified by their responder status. Cumulative counts over subsequent intervals (months 1-3, months 1-6, months 2 through 6) were tallied.The studies randomised 2428 patients. Over month 1, 24.6%, 22.8% and 12.5% of patients were composite responders with eluxadoline 100 mg, eluxadoline 75 mg and placebo respectively. For month 1 responders, 77.8% and 81.5% (over months 1-3) and 70.7% and 73.9% (over months 1-6) showed a continuous response with eluxadoline 100 mg and 75 mg respectively. [Correction added on 5 April 2017, after first online publication: The percentage for the responders over months 1-3 was previously wrong and has been corrected.] Of the month 1 nonresponders, <20% showed a response over months 1-3 or months 1-6. Similar results were seen for the analysis of proportions of AR responders over these time intervals.Over two-thirds of patients who respond over the first month retain a positive response over 6 months of treatment with eluxadoline, indicating that early clinical response to eluxadoline is associated with sustained benefits for up to 6 months in patients with IBS-D.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Tenapanor is a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of the gastrointestinal sodium/hydrogen exchanger NHE3. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of tenapanor in patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C). METHODS:In this phase 2, double-blind study, patients with IBS-C (Rome III criteria) were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive tenapanor 5?mg, 20?mg, or 50?mg b.i.d., or placebo b.i.d. for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) responder rate, defined as the proportion of patients reporting an increase from baseline of ?1 CSBM/week for ?6/12 treatment weeks. Secondary end points included abdominal symptom responder rates (?30% score improvement from baseline for ?6/12 weeks) and a composite responder rate (CSBM and abdominal pain response in the same week for ?6/12 weeks). RESULTS:Overall, 356 patients were randomized (mean age: 45.7 years; 86.8% women) and 304 completed the study. The CSBM responder rate was significantly higher in the tenapanor 50?mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group (60.7 vs. 33.7%; P<0.001), as was the composite responder rate (50.0 vs. 23.6%; P<0.001). Responder rates for abdominal symptoms (pain, discomfort, bloating, cramping, and fullness) were significantly higher in the tenapanor 50?mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group (all P<0.05). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event (tenapanor b.i.d.: 20?mg, 12.4%; 50?mg, 11.2%). CONCLUSIONS:Tenapanor 50?mg b.i.d. significantly increased stool frequency and reduced abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C. Further research into tenapanor as a potential treatment for these patients is justified.
Project description:<b>Objective: </b>To examine responder rates and vasomotor symptom-free days with oral 17?-estradiol/progesterone (E2/P4; TX-001HR) versus placebo in the REPLENISH trial.<br><br><b>Methods: </b>REPLENISH (NCT01942668) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, evaluating single, oral, softgel E2/P4 capsules in postmenopausal women (40-65 y) with a uterus and vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Women with moderate to severe hot flushes (?7/d or ?50/wk) were randomized (VMS substudy) to daily E2/P4?(mg/mg) of 1/100, 0.5/100, 0.5/50, 0.25/50, or placebo. Proportions of women with ?50% or ?75% reductions in moderate to severe VMS (responders), and those with no severe VMS as well as the weekly number of days without moderate to severe VMS with TX-001HR versus placebo were determined. Mixed model repeated measures was used to analyze data and Fisher exact test was employed to compare E2/P4 versus placebo.<br><br><b>Results: </b>Seven hundred twenty-six women were eligible for the VMS efficacy analysis (E2/P4?1/100 [n?=?141], 0.5/100 [n?=?149], 0.5/50 [n?=?147], 0.25/50 [n?=?154], or placebo [n?=?135]). Significantly more women treated with all E2/P4 doses versus placebo were ?50% responders and ?75% responders at weeks 4 and 12 (P?<?0.05) and also had significantly more days per week without moderate to severe VMS at week 12 (1.9-3.0 d for E2/P4 versus 1.3 d for placebo; P?<?0.05). The proportion of women without severe hot flushes at week 12 was 43% to 56% for all E2/P4 doses versus 26% for placebo (P ? 0.01).<br><br><b>Conclusions: </b>Women treated with E2/P4 had a greater response to treatment with more VMS-free days than with placebo. The E2/P4?1/100 dose (Bijuva [E2 and P4] capsules) represents an oral treatment option for postmenopausal women with moderate to severe VMS and a uterus.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Phase III FUTURE I and II trials demonstrated the clinical efficacy of secukinumab in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study compared the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of adalimumab 40 mg versus secukinumab 150 and 300 mg for the treatment of active PsA. METHODS:A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data from the ADEPT trial of adalimumab and published data from FUTURE I and II. To adjust for the cross-trial differences, individual patients in ADEPT were re-weighted so that the mean baseline characteristics (including age, weight, gender, race, baseline methotrexate use, psoriasis ?3% body surface area, baseline PASI score, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis, and HAQ-DI) matched those in the FUTURE trials. Response rates relative to placebo and incremental costs per responder (CPR) over 24 weeks for ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 were compared between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 and 300 mg from the German social health insurance (SHI) perspective. RESULTS:After matching, mean baseline characteristics were balanced across the ADEPT and the FUTURE I and II populations. The mean differences between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 mg in relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 response rates were 9.5, 3.0, 6.0, 13.1, and 6.7%, respectively (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Post-match relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75 to placebo were also higher with adalimumab compared to secukinumab 300 mg. Adalimumab had lower incremental costs per responder over 24 weeks for all outcomes compared with secukinumab 150 and 300 mg. CONCLUSIONS:In the absence of direct comparisons between adalimumab and secukinumab, this study provides valuable and reliable evidence for physicians and payers. After adjusting for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, adalimumab was associated with higher relative ACR and PASI rates and lower incremental CPRs compared with secukinumab 150 mg or 300 mg at week 24 among patients with active PsA. FUNDING:AbbVie.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In clinical practice, temporary interruption of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy is common for various reasons including side effects, non-compliance, or necessity for surgery. To characterize temporary interruptions of baricitinib and placebo-matched tablets in phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and describe their impact on efficacy and safety. METHODS:During 4 baricitinib phase 3 studies, investigators documented timing, reason, and duration of investigator-initiated temporary interruptions of study drug. In 2 studies, patients recorded RA symptoms in daily diaries for 12?weeks. Post hoc analyses investigated changes in symptom scores during interruptions and resumption of treatment. Interruptions were evaluated for reoccurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities after retreatment. RESULTS:Across the placebo-controlled studies, interruptions occurred in larger proportions of baricitinib- (2 mg, 18%; 4 mg, 18%) vs placebo-treated (9%) patients in only one study (bDMARD-inadequate responder patients, RA-BEACON). In the active comparator-controlled studies, the lowest rates of interruption were in the baricitinib monotherapy arm (9%) of RA-BEGIN (vs methotrexate monotherapy or combination therapy), and proportions were similar for baricitinib (10%) and adalimumab (9%) in RA-BEAM. Adverse events were the most common reason for interruption, but their reoccurrence after drug restart was infrequent. Most interruptions lasted ??2?weeks. Daily diaries indicated modest symptom increases during interruption with return to pre-interruption levels or better after resumption. Interruptions had no impact on long-term efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Consistent with its pharmacologic properties, brief interruptions of baricitinib during phase 3 studies were associated with minor increases in RA symptoms that resolved following retreatment. This analysis provides useful information for clinicians, as temporary interruption of antirheumatic therapy is common in the care of patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01710358, NCT01711359, NCT01721057, NCT01721044.