Improvements in skin clearance and patient-reported signs and symptoms of psoriasis with brodalumab: Pooled analysis of phase 3 clinical studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. AB78
2021 ◽  
Vol 141 (9) ◽  
pp. B12
Author(s):  
J. Harper ◽  
A. Armstrong ◽  
R. Fried ◽  
E. Rieder ◽  
A. Alvarez-Dieppa ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Gwaltney ◽  
Jonathan Stokes ◽  
Anthony Aiudi ◽  
Iyar Mazar ◽  
Sarah Ollis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Barth Syndrome (BTHS) is a rare genetic disorder that presents as a complex of debilitating symptoms and reduced life expectancy. Well-developed, BTHS-specific assessments measuring primary signs and symptoms of BTHS are not currently available, making it difficult to evaluate treatment effects in BTHS clinical studies. The objective of this research was to develop symptom-focused patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for use in clinical studies with adolescents and adults with BTHS. Methods Concept elicitation interviews (CEIs) with pediatric (n = 18, age < 16 years) and adult (n = 15, age ≥ 16 years) individuals with BTHS and/or their caregivers were conducted to identify signs and symptoms relevant to BTHS and important to individuals with the condition. Based on CEI results, questionnaire construction activities were conducted to create unique adolescent and adult versions of the Barth Syndrome-Symptom Assessment (BTHS-SA). The questionnaires were evaluated in cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with adolescents (n = 12; age 12- < 16 years) and adults (n = 12; age ≥ 16 years) with BTHS to assess relevance and readability of the tools. Results During the CEIs, a total of 48 and 40 signs and symptoms were reported by the pediatric and adult groups, respectively; 31 were reported by both age groups. Fatigue/tiredness and muscle weakness were the symptoms most frequently reported by both pediatric and adult patients with BTHS as important to improve with an effective treatment. The CEI results informed construction of a nine-item version of the BTHS-SA for adolescents and an eight-item version for adults. Developed for daily administration, each version asks respondents to rate symptom severity “at its worst” over the 24 h prior to administration. CDIs with both adolescents and adults with BTHS demonstrated that each BTHS-SA version was reflective of the disease experience and that respondents could interpret the questionnaire as intended and provide responses that accurately reflected their symptom experience. Conclusions The BTHS-SA adolescent and adult versions are content-valid PRO measures that can be used to evaluate severity of disease-specific symptoms in future clinical trials. Given the lack of available and well-developed assessments in this underserved therapeutic area, these tools fulfill a need for clinical researchers developing treatments for individuals with BTHS.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Rosenberg ◽  
Gary Zammit ◽  
Jane Yardley ◽  
Kate Pinner ◽  
Carlos Perdomo ◽  
...  

Abstract:Study Objective(s):The dual orexin receptor antagonist, lemborexant (LEM), is being investigated for the treatment of insomnia disorder. Drugs targeting the orexin system, like LEM, may decrease wakefulness and promote sleep with fewer potential adverse effects (AEs) than some currently available pharmacological insomnia therapies. LEM has been studied in 2 pivotal phase 3 trials for insomnia disorder, SUNRISE-1 (NCT02783729; E2006-G000-304) and SUNRISE-2 (NCT02952820; E2006-G000-303). Analyses presented here are derived from patient-reported (subjective) efficacy data pooled from SUNRISE-1 and SUNRISE-2 during 1-month of treatment in adult and elderly (age ≥65y) subjects with DSM-5 insomnia disorder.Method:SUNRISE-1 was a 1-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo (PBO)- and active-controlled (zolpidem tartrate extended-release 6.25mg [ZOL; not reported), parallel-group study in 1006 subjects (age ≥55y). SUNRISE-2 was a 12-month (6-month PBO-controlled, 6-month active treatment), double-blind study in 949 subjects (age ≥18y). In both studies, subjects were randomized to PBO, LEM5, or LEM10 (SUNRISE-1 subjects could also be randomized to ZOL; not included in pooled analysis) following a 2-week PBO run-in. Changes from baseline (BL) in subjective sleep onset latency (sSOL), subjective sleep efficiency (sSE), and subjective wake after sleep onset (sWASO) were analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis. Sleep onset and sleep maintenance responders were analyzed via Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test stratified by study, region and age group.Results:The pooled analysis set comprised 1693 subjects (PBO, n=527; LEM5, n=582; LEM10, n=584). Reductions from BL in sSOL were significantly greater for LEM5 and LEM10 vs PBO during the first 7 days of treatment and at the end of Month 1 (all comparisons P<0.0001). Both doses of LEM significantly increased sSE from BL (P<0.001 both time points) more than PBO and reduced sWASO from BL (P<0.0001 first 7 days [both doses]; P<0.05 [LEM5] and P<0.001 [LEM10] at Month 1) more than PBO. After the first 7 days and at the end of Month 1, the proportion of sSOL responders (≤20 min if BL >30 min) was statistically significantly larger for LEM5 and LEM10 vs PBO (first 7 days: both P<0.0001; last 7 days of Month 1: both P<0.001) and the proportion of sWASO responders (≤60 minutes and a reduction from BL by >10 min, if BL >60 min) was statistically significantly larger for LEM5 and LEM10 vs PBO (first 7 days: both P<0.01; last 7 days of Month 1: both P<0.05). LEM was well tolerated. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity, and rates of severe or serious AEs were low.Conclusions:LEM improved sleep onset and sleep maintenance in adult and elderly subjects with insomnia disorder, and was well tolerated. Average values on sleep maintenance endpoints showed that subjects treated with LEM obtained >1 hour of additional sleep per night vs subjects who received PBO.Funding Acknowledgements:Supported by Eisai Inc.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. s82
Author(s):  
Steven Dayan ◽  
Patricia Ogilvie ◽  
Alexander Z Rivkin ◽  
Steven G Yoelin ◽  
Julie K Garcia ◽  
...  

Abstract Not Available Disclosures: Study supported by Allergan.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. s96
Author(s):  
David M Pariser ◽  
Adelaide A Hebert ◽  
Janice Drew ◽  
John Quiring ◽  
Dee Anna Glaser

Abstract Not AvailableDisclosure: Study supported by Dermira.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. S41
Author(s):  
David M Pariser ◽  
Adelaide A Hebert ◽  
Janice Drew ◽  
John Quiring ◽  
Dee Anna Glaser

Abstract not available. Disclosures: Study supported by Dermira. Copyright SKIN 2018


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. s49
Author(s):  
Linda Stein Gold ◽  
Sunil Dhawan ◽  
Jonathan Weiss ◽  
Zoe D Draelos ◽  
Herman Ellman

Abstract Not Available


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document