Explore the vast range of titles available.

Antiviral medication has emerged as an important tool in the prevention of HIV infection. In this randomized, controlled trial, an injectable long-acting agent, cabotegravir, was found to be superior to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–emtricitabine in preventing incident HIV infection in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men.

Buruli ulcer is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection that damages the skin and subcutis. It is most prevalent in western and central Africa and Australia. Standard antimicrobial treatment with oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus intramuscular streptomycin 15 mg/kg once daily for 8 weeks (RS8) is highly effective, but streptomycin injections are painful and potentially harmful. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fully oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus clarithromycin 15 mg/kg extended release once daily for 8 weeks (RC8) with that of RS8 for treatment of early Buruli ulcer lesions. We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial comparing fully oral RC8 with RS8 in patients with early, limited Buruli ulcer lesions. There were four trial sites in hospitals in Ghana (Agogo, Tepa, Nkawie, Dunkwa) and one in Benin (Pobè). Participants were included if they were aged 5 years or older and had typical Buruli ulcer with no more than one lesion (caterories I and II) no larger than 10 cm in diameter. The trial was open label, and neither the investigators who took measurements of the lesions nor the attending doctors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary clinical endpoint was lesion healing (ie, full epithelialisation or stable scar) without recurrence at 52 weeks after start of antimicrobial therapy. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A sample size of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01659437. Between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2017, participants were recruited to the trial. We stopped recruitment after 310 participants. Median age of participants was 14 years (IQR 10–29) and 153 (52%) were female. 297 patients had PCR-confirmed Buruli ulcer; 151 (51%) were assigned to RS8 treatment, and 146 (49%) received oral RC8 treatment. In the RS8 group, lesions healed in 144 (95%, 95% CI 91 to 98) of 151 patients, whereas lesions healed in 140 (96%, 91 to 99) of 146 patients in the RC8 group. The difference in proportion, −0·5% (–5·2 to 4·2), was not significantly greater than zero (p=0·59), showing that RC8 treatment is non-inferior to RS8 treatment for lesion healing at 52 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 20 (13%) patients receiving RS8 and in nine (7%) patients receiving RC8. Most adverse events were grade 1–2, but one (1%) patient receiving RS8 developed serious ototoxicity and ended treatment after 6 weeks. No patients needed surgical resection. Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts. Fully oral RC8 regimen was non-inferior to RS8 for treatment of early, limited Buruli ulcer and was associated with fewer adverse events. Therefore, we propose that fully oral RC8 should be the preferred therapy for early, limited lesions of Buruli ulcer. WHO with additional support from MAP International, American Leprosy Missions, Fondation Raoul Follereau France, Buruli ulcer Groningen Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, and BuruliVac.

Phase 2 studies with upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, have shown safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. We did this study to further assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). We did this double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 153 sites in 26 countries. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had active rheumatoid arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs, and were receiving concomitant background conventional synthetic DMARDS (csDMARDs). We randomly assigned patients (2:2:1:1) by interactive response technology to receive once-daily oral extended-release upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg from week 12 onwards. The two separate primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and the proportion of patients achieving a 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or less at week 12. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Data are presented up to week 24 of this ongoing study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847). Between March 15, 2016, and Jan 10, 2017, 499 patients were randomly assigned (n=165 upadacitinib 15 mg; n=165 upadacitinib 30 mg; n=85 placebo then upadacitinib 15 mg; and n=84 placebo then upadacitinib 30 mg) and one patient was withdrawn from the 15 mg upadacitinib group before the start of study treatment. Mean disease duration was 13·2 years (SD 9·5); 235 (47%) of 498 patients had received one previous bDMARD, 137 (28%) had received two, and 125 (25%) had received at least three; 451 (91%) patients completed treatment up to week 12 and 419 (84%) patients completed treatment up to week 24. At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by 106 (65%; 95% CI 57–72) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 93 (56%; 49–64) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg compared with 48 (28%; 22–35) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). DAS28(CRP) of 3·2 or less was achieved by 71 (43%; 95% CI 36–51) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 70 (42%; 35–50) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg versus 24 (14%; 9–20) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). Up to week 12, overall numbers of patients with adverse events were similar for the placebo group (95 [56%] of 169) and the upadacitinib 15 mg group (91 [55%] of 164), but higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (111 [67%] of 165). At week 12, the most common adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in any treatment group were upper respiratory tract infection (13 [8%] of 169 in the placebo group; 13 [8%] of 164 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group; ten [6%] of 165 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), nasopharyngitis (11 [7%]; seven [4%]; nine [5%]), urinary tract infection (ten [6%]; 15 [9%]; nine [5%]), and worsening of rheumatoid arthritis (ten [6%]; four [2%]; six [4%]). The number of patients with serious adverse events was higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (12 [7%]) than in the upadacitinib 15 mg group (eight [5%]); no serious adverse events were reported in patients receiving placebo. More patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group had serious infections, herpes zoster, and adverse events leading to discontinuation than in the upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo groups. During the placebo-controlled phase of the study, one case of pulmonary embolism, three malignancies, one major adverse cardiovascular event, and one death were reported in patients receiving upadacitinib; none were reported in patients receiving placebo. Both doses of upadacitinib led to rapid and significant improvements compared with placebo over 12 weeks in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis. AbbVie Inc.

Objective: A recent double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study demonstrated 3-month efficacy and safety of a novel pediatric-appropriate prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) for insomnia in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and neurogenetic disorders (NGD) with/without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder comorbidity. Long-term efficacy and safety of PedPRM treatment was studied. Methods: A prospective, open-label efficacy and safety follow-up of nightly 2, 5, or 10 mg PedPRM in subjects who completed the 13-week double-blind trial (51 PedPRM; 44 placebo). Measures included caregiver-reported Sleep and Nap Diary, Composite Sleep Disturbance Index (CSDI), caregiver's Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and quality of life (WHO-5 Well-Being Index). Results: Ninety-five subjects (74.7% males; mean [standard deviation] age, 9 [4.24]; range, 2–17.5 years) received PedPRM (2/5 mg) according to the double-blind phase dose, for 39 weeks with optional dose adjustment (2, 5, or 10 mg/day) after the first 13 weeks. After 52 weeks of continuous treatment (PedPRM-randomized group) subjects slept (mean [SE]) 62.08 (21.5) minutes longer (p = 0.007); fell asleep 48.6 (10.2) minutes faster (p < 0.001); had 89.1 (25.5) minutes longer uninterrupted sleep episodes (p = 0.001); 0.41 (0.12) less nightly awakenings (>50% decrease; p = 0.001); and better sleep quality (p < 0.001) compared with baseline. The placebo-randomized group also improved with PedPRM. Altogether, by the end of 39-week follow-up, regardless of randomization assignment, 55/72 (76%) of completers achieved overall improvement of ≥1 hour in total sleep time (TST), sleep latency or both, over baseline, with no evidence of decreased efficacy. In parallel, CSDI child sleep disturbance and caregivers' satisfaction of their child's sleep patterns (p < 0.001 for both), PSQI global (p < 0.001), and WHO-5 (p = 0.001) improved in statistically significant and clinically relevant manner (n = 72) compared with baseline. PedPRM was generally safe; most frequent treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (5.3%) and mood swings (3.2% of patients). Conclusion: PedPRM, an easily swallowed formulation shown to be efficacious versus placebo, is an efficacious and safe option for long-term treatment (up to 52 weeks reported here) of children with ASD and NGD who suffer from insomnia and subsequently improves caregivers' quality of life.

The limitations of current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medications for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) set the need for the development of novel, effective, and tolerable medications to treat this disorder. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether treatment with SPN-812 (viloxazine extended-release) significantly reduces symptoms of ADHD in children. This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week trial to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily 100- and 200-mg SPN-812 in the treatment of ADHD in male and female children 6–11 years of age. Inclusion criteria required subjects to have a confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, ADHD diagnosis, an ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score ≥28, a Clinical Global Impression-Severity score ≥4, and for subjects to be free of ADHD medication ≥1 week before randomization. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) at end of study (EOS) in ADHD-RS-5 Total score. Key secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores at EOS and CFB at EOS in the Conners 3–Parent Short Form (Conners 3–PS) Composite T-score and the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale–Parent (WFIRS–P) Total average score. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, physical examinations, ECGs, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a mixed model for repeated measures; all secondary measures were analyzed by using an ANCOVA model. A total of 477 subjects were randomized to treatment (intent-to-treat population, n = 460). The majority of subjects were male (63%) and either White (51.3%) or African American (43.7%). The demographic and baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. Statistically significant improvements in ADHD-RS-5 Total score were observed in both the 100- and 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo at week 1 of treatment (P = 0.0004 and P = 0.0244, respectively), which was maintained through EOS (P = 0.0004 and P < 0.0001). Significant improvements were also observed at EOS in the CGI-I scale (P = 0.0020 and P < 0.0001), Conners 3–PS Composite T-score (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.0002), and WFIRS–P Total average score (P = 0.0019 and P = 0.0002) versus placebo. Treatment-related AEs reported in ≥5% of subjects included somnolence, decreased appetite, and headache. The discontinuation rate due to AEs was <5%. SPN-812 significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in children and was well tolerated. SPN-812 may prove to be an effective treatment for children with ADHD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03247530. •SPN-812 improved ADHD symptoms in children (ADHD-RS-5 and CGI-I scores vs placebo).•Higher 50% respondent rate per ADHD-RS-5 in SPN-812 treatment groups vs placebo.•Greater proportion of patients who improved (categorical CGI-I) vs placebo.•Parent-rated Conners 3-PS and WFIRS-P scales also indicate improvement.•SPN-812 (100-mg/day and 200-mg/day) was well tolerated with low discontinuation rates.

There are no data from prospective studies focused exclusively on patients with advanced lung and thymic carcinoids. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of long-acting pasireotide and everolimus, administered alone or in combination, in patients with advanced carcinoids of the lung or thymus. LUNA was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of adult patients (aged >18 years) with advanced (unresectable or metastatic), well differentiated carcinoid tumours of the lung or thymus, with radiological progression within 12 months before randomisation, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. At each centre, the investigator or their designee registered each patient using an interactive voice recognition system into one of the three treatment groups. The randomisation allocation sequence was generated by an external company; patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive treatment with long-acting pasireotide (60 mg intramuscularly every 28 days), everolimus (10 mg orally once daily), or both in combination, for the core 12-month treatment period. Patients were stratified by carcinoid type (typical vs atypical) and line of study treatment (first line vs others). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients progression-free at month 9, defined as the proportion of patients with overall lesion assessment at month 9 showing a complete response, partial response, or stable disease according to local Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01563354. The extension phase of the study is ongoing. Between Aug 16, 2013, and Sept 30, 2014, 124 patients were enrolled from 36 centres in nine countries: 41 were allocated to the long-acting pasireotide group, 42 to the everolimus group, and 41 to the combination group. At month 9, the proportion of patients with an overall lesion assessment of complete response, partial response, or stable disease was 16 of 41 patients (39·0%, 95% CI 24·2–55·5) in the long-acting pasireotide group, 14 of 42 patients (33·3%, 19·6–49·5) in the everolimus group, and 24 of 41 patients (58·5%, 42·1–73·7) in the combination group. The most common grade 1–2 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were diarrhoea (15 [37%] of 41), hyperglycaemia (17 [41%]), and weight loss (8 [20%]); those with a suspected association with everolimus monotherapy were stomatitis (26 [62%] of 42) and diarrhoea (16 [38%]); and those suspected to be associated with combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (27 [66%] of 41]), diarrhoea (19 [46%]), and asthenia (8 [20%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were γ-glutamyltransferase increased (four [10%] of 41 patients), diarrhoea (three [7%]), and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]); those for everolimus were hyperglycaemia (seven [17%] of 42 patients), stomatitis (four [10%]), and diarrhoea (three [7%]); those for combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (nine [22%] of 41 patients) and diarrhoea (four [10%]). 11 patients died during the core 12-month treatment phase or up to 56 days after the last study treatment exposure date: two (5%) of 41 in the long-acting pasireotide group, six (14%) of 42 in the everolimus group, and three (7%) of 41 in the combination group. No deaths were suspected to be related to long-acting pasireotide treatment. One death in the everolimus group (acute kidney injury associated with diarrhoea), and two deaths in the combination group (diarrhoea and urinary sepsis in one patient, and acute renal failure and respiratory failure in one patient) were suspected to be related to everolimus treatment. In the latter patient, acute renal failure was not suspected to be related to everolimus treatment, but respiratory failure was suspected to be related. The study met the primary endpoint in all three treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. Further studies are needed to confirm the antitumour efficacy of the combination of a somatostatin analogue with everolimus in lung and thymic carcinoids. Novartis Pharma AG.

IPX066 is an oral, extended-release, capsule formulation of carbidopa-levodopa. We aimed to assess this extended-release formulation versus immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations. We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study at 68 academic and clinical centres in North America and Europe. Patients with Parkinson's disease who had at least 2·5 h per day of off-time underwent 3 weeks of open-label immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa dose adjustment followed by 6 weeks of open-label extended-release carbidopa-levodopa dose conversion. These patients were then randomly allocated (1:1), by use of an interactive web-response system, to 13 weeks of double-blind treatment with extended-release or immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa plus matched placebos. The primary efficacy measure was off-time as a percentage of waking hours in all patients randomly allocated to treatment groups, adjusted for baseline value. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00974974. Between Sept 29, 2009, and Aug 16, 2010, we enrolled 471 participants, of whom 393 (83%) were randomly allocated in the double-blind maintenance period and were included in the main efficacy analyses. As a percentage of waking hours, 201 patients treated double-blind with extended-release carbidopa-levodopa (mean 3·6 doses per day [SD 0·7]) had greater reductions in off-time than did 192 patients treated double-blind with immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa (mean 5·0 doses per day [1·2]). Covariate-adjusted end-of-study means were 23·82% (SD 14·91) for extended-release carbidopa-levodopa and 29·79% (15·81) for immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa (mean difference −5·97, 95% CI −9·05 to −2·89; p<0·0001). Extended-release carbidopa-levodopa reduced daily off-time by, on average, an extra −1·17 h (95% CI −1·69 to −0·66; p<0·0001) compared with immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa. During dose conversion with extended-release carbidopa-levodopa, 23 (5%) of 450 patients withdrew because of adverse events and 13 (3%) withdrew because of a lack of efficacy. In the maintenance period, the most common adverse events were insomnia (seven [3%] of 201 patients allocated extended-release carbidopa-levodopa vs two [1%] of 192 patients allocated immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa), nausea (six [3%] vs three [2%]), and falls (six [3%] vs four [2%]). Extended-release carbidopa-levodopa might be a useful treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease who have motor fluctuations, with potential benefits including decreased off-time and reduced levodopa dosing frequency. Impax Laboratories.

Background Preclinical and clinical studies suggest amantadine immediate-release (IR) may reduce dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease (PD), although higher doses are associated with increased CNS adverse events (AEs). ADS-5102 is an extended release amantadine capsule formulation, designed for once-daily dosing at bedtime (qhs) to provide high concentrations upon waking and throughout the day, with lower concentrations in the evening. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of ADS-5102 were assessed in two phase I studies in healthy subjects, and a blinded, randomized phase II/III dose-finding study in PD patients. Methods The first phase I study assessed single ADS-5102 doses (68.5, 137, and 274 mg) in a crossover design, whereas the second phase I study evaluated ADS-5102 137 mg for 7 days followed by amantadine IR 81 mg twice daily (or reverse order). In the phase II/III double-blind study, PD patients with dyskinesia were randomized to ADS-5102 (210, 274, or 338 mg) or placebo for 8 weeks. Results Single ADS-5102 doses resulted in a slow initial rise in amantadine plasma concentration, with delayed time to maximum concentration (12–16 h). Amantadine plasma concentrations were higher in PD patients versus healthy volunteers. The steady-state profile of once-daily ADS-5102 was significantly different from that of twice-daily amantadine IR, such that the two formulations are not bioequivalent. PK modeling suggested the recommended daily ADS-5102 dosage (274 mg qhs) resulted in 1.4- to 2.0-fold higher amantadine plasma concentrations during the day versus amantadine IR. Conclusions ADS-5102 can be administered once-daily qhs to achieve high amantadine plasma concentrations in the morning and throughout the day, when symptoms of dyskinesia occur.

Pancreatic-enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is the standard of care to prevent maldigestion, malnutrition, and excessive weight loss in patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) due to chronic pancreatitis (CP) or pancreatic surgery (PS). Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of pancrelipase (pancreatin) delayed-release 12,000-lipase unit capsules (CREON) in patients with EPI due to CP or PS. This was a double-blind, randomized, multicountry, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial enrolling patients ≥18 years old with confirmed EPI due to CP or PS conducted in clinical research centers or hospitals. After a 5-day placebo run-in period (baseline), patients were randomized to pancrelipase (72,000 lipase units per meal; 36,000 per snack) or placebo for 7 days. All patients received an individually designed diet to provide at least 100 g of fat per day. The primary efficacy measure was the change in coefficient of fat absorption (CFA) from baseline to end of the double-blind period, analyzed using non-parametric analysis of covariance. Secondary outcomes included the coefficient of nitrogen absorption (CNA), clinical symptoms, and safety parameters. In total, 25 patients (median age of 54 years, 76% male) received pancrelipase and 29 patients (median age of 50 years, 69% male) received placebo. Th e mean ± s.d. change from baseline in CFA was significantly greater with pancrelipase vs. placebo: 31.9 ± 18.6 vs. 8.7 ± 12.4 % ( P < 0.0001) [corrected]. Similarly, the mean ± s.d. change from baseline in CNA was greater for pancrelipase vs. placebo: 35.2 ± 29.1 vs. 8.9 ± 28.0 % ( P = 0.0005) [corrected].Greater improvements from baseline in stool frequency, stool consistency, abdominal pain, and flatulence were observed with pancrelipase vs. placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in five patients (20.0%) in the pancrelipase group and in six (20.7%) in the placebo group; the most common were gastrointestinal (GI) events and metabolism/nutrition disorders. There were no treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs. Pancrelipase delayed-release 12,000-lipase unit capsules were effective in treating fat and nitrogen maldigestion with a TEAE rate similar to that of placebo in patients with EPI due to CP or PS.

Background Melatonin is extensively used in the USA in a non-regulated manner for sleep disorders. Prolonged release melatonin (PRM) is licensed in Europe and other countries for the short term treatment of primary insomnia in patients aged 55 years and over. However, a clear definition of the target patient population and well-controlled studies of long-term efficacy and safety are lacking. It is known that melatonin production declines with age. Some young insomnia patients also may have low melatonin levels. The study investigated whether older age or low melatonin excretion is a better predictor of response to PRM, whether the efficacy observed in short-term studies is sustained during continued treatment and the long term safety of such treatment. Methods Adult outpatients (791, aged 18-80 years) with primary insomnia, were treated with placebo (2 weeks) and then randomized, double-blind to 3 weeks with PRM or placebo nightly. PRM patients continued whereas placebo completers were re-randomized 1:1 to PRM or placebo for 26 weeks with 2 weeks of single-blind placebo run-out. Main outcome measures were sleep latency derived from a sleep diary, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Quality of Life (World Health Organzaton-5) Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) and adverse effects and vital signs recorded at each visit. Results On the primary efficacy variable, sleep latency, the effects of PRM (3 weeks) in patients with low endogenous melatonin (6-sulphatoxymelatonin [6-SMT] ≤8 μg/night) regardless of age did not differ from the placebo, whereas PRM significantly reduced sleep latency compared to the placebo in elderly patients regardless of melatonin levels (-19.1 versus -1.7 min; P = 0.002). The effects on sleep latency and additional sleep and daytime parameters that improved with PRM were maintained or enhanced over the 6-month period with no signs of tolerance. Most adverse events were mild in severity with no clinically relevant differences between PRM and placebo for any safety outcome. Conclusions The results demonstrate short- and long-term efficacy and safety of PRM in elderly insomnia patients. Low melatonin production regardless of age is not useful in predicting responses to melatonin therapy in insomnia. The age cut-off for response warrants further investigation.