Search

Background A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. Methods PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. Findings The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI –0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). Interpretation Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. Funding National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Background: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. Aim: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community. Design and setting: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). Method: Adults aged ≥65, or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500μg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm). Results: The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine from March 04, 2021 until May 26, 2021, after the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0·919 [95% credible interval 0·72 to 1·16] and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0·76 [0·28 to 1·89] and an estimated difference of 0.4% [-2.4 to 2.7%]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and two in usual care. Conclusions: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 triggering the COVID-19 pandemic ranks as arguably the greatest medical emergency of the last century. COVID-19 has highlighted health disparities both within and between countries and will leave a lasting impact on global society. Nonetheless, substantial investment in life sciences over recent decades has facilitated a rapid scientific response with innovations in viral characterization, testing, and sequencing. Perhaps most remarkably, this permitted the development of highly effective vaccines, which are being distributed globally at unprecedented speed. In contrast, drug treatments for the established disease have delivered limited benefits so far. Innovative and rapid approaches in the design and execution of large-scale clinical trials and repurposing of existing drugs have saved many lives; however, many more remain at risk. In this review we describe challenges and unmet needs, discuss existing therapeutics, and address future opportunities. Consideration is given to factors that have hindered drug development in order to support planning for the next pandemic challenge and to allow rapid and cost-effective development of new therapeutics with equitable delivery.

Background: Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. Methods: In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. Findings: Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment–time interactions were –0·09 (95% CI –0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (–0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. Interpretation: Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation—as measured by CRP concentration—in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19.

ObjectivesColchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment, but its effect on time to recovery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether colchicine is effective at reducing time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community.DesignProspective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE).SettingNational trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥65, or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions.Main outcome measuresThe co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm).ResultsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine starting on March 04, 2021 and stopping on May 26, 2021, because the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.919 [95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.16] and an estimated increase of 1.14 days [−1.86 to 5.21] in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 [0.28 to 1.89] and an estimated difference of −0.4% [−2.7% to 2.4]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and one in usual care.ConclusionsColchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.Trial registrationISRCTN86534580.

Introduction Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Inflammatory monocytes and macrophages are crucial, promoting injurious, proinflammatory sequelae. Immunomodulation is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic strategy and we sought to test licensed and novel candidate drugs. Methods and analysis The CATALYST trial is a multiarm, open-label, multicentre, phase II platform trial designed to identify candidate novel treatments to improve outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care. Treatments with evidence of biomarker improvements will be put forward for larger-scale testing by current national phase III platform trials. Hospitalised patients >16 years with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (confirmed by chest X-ray or CT scan, with or without a positive reverse transcription PCR assay) and a C reactive protein (CRP) ≥40 mg/L are eligible. The primary outcome measure is CRP, measured serially from admission to day 14, hospital discharge or death. Secondary outcomes include the WHO Clinical Progression Improvement Scale as a principal efficacy assessment. Ethics and dissemination The protocol was approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0115) and given urgent public health status; initial approval was received on 5 May 2020, current protocol version (V.6.0) approval on 12 October 2020. The MHRA also approved all protocol versions. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration numbers EudraCT2020-001684-89,NCT40580903.

Background The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Methods This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. Findings 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43–1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Funding National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Background: Clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes in children and adolescents with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 are not well characterized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 80 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 who commenced tumor surveillance at ≤18 years of age. Results: Fifty-six patients (70%) developed an endocrine tumor by age ≤18 years (median age = 14 years, range = 6–18 years). Primary hyperparathyroidism occurred in >80% of patients, with >70% undergoing parathyroidectomy, in which less-than-subtotal (70% had nonfunctioning tumors, >35% had insulinomas, and 55% undergoing surgery. Pituitary tumors developed in >30% of patients, and ∼35% were macroprolactinomas. Tumor occurrence in male patients and female patients was not significantly different. Genetic analyses revealed 38 germline MEN1 mutations, of which 3 were novel. Conclusions: Seventy percent of children aged ≤18 years with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 develop endocrine tumors, which include parathyroid tumors for which less-than-subtotal parathyroidectomy should be avoided; pancreaticoduodenal neuroendocrine tumors that may metastasize; and pituitary macroprolactinomas.

Objective Base of thumb OA (BTOA) is a common age-related disease that has a significant negative impact on quality of life, while little is known about the structure and pathways of interface services. Our aim was to assess disease burden, referral pathways, service structure and management pathways in UK interface services. Methods A structured questionnaire was carried out with a participating clinician at each centre to detail the local guidelines and management of BTOA. Five patients referred with BTOA were prospectively identified in each of 32 UK interface centres. Results Most centres (72%) had a local guideline and a standardized treatment regime consisting of education (100%), joint protection (100%), range of motion exercises (84%), strengthening exercises (88%), splintage (100%) and use of assistive devices (78%). No centre routinely offered a steroid injection at the first appointment and no centre had a specific threshold for offering an injection. Injection delivery was variable. Most patients had not been referred previously (82%). Most patients used analgesia (72%), but a minority of patients had been treated with a splint (46%), therapy (43%) and steroid injection (27%) prior to their latest attendance. Conclusion Most BTOA patients newly referred to interface services have been treated with analgesics and have not received comprehensive multimodal intervention. The management of BTOA at interface services is standardized in terms of education, splintage and therapy. However, there is a lack of standardization in terms of both the threshold for, timing of and mode of delivery of injection therapy.

Background and purpose Miridesap, a depleter of serum amyloid P component (SAP), forms an essential component of a novel approach to remove systemic amyloid deposits; low oral bioavailability necessitates that it is given parenterally. We sought to identify and clinically characterise a pro-drug that preserves the pharmacological properties of miridesap while having adequate oral bioavailability and physical stability. Experimental approach We utilised a preclinical screening cascade focused on appropriate physicochemical properties, physical and gut stability, and conversion to miridesap in liver microsomes and blood. GSK3039294 (GSK294) had the desired in vitro profile and progressed to preclinical in vivo pharmacokinetic and safety assessments. Based on a favourable profile, it was tested in healthy participants after single and repeat dosing. Key results GSK294 was highly soluble and stable in simulated gastric and intestinal fluids, stable in intestinal microsomes, and permeable in Madine Darby Canine Kidney type II cells. GSK294 was rapidly hydrolysed to miridesap and its mono pro-drug ester in blood and liver microsomes. GSK294 showed good oral bioavailability of miridesap in rats and dogs. Following administration of GSK294 600 mg QD for 7 days in humans, pharmacodynamically active concentrations of miridesap were achieved with substantial and sustained depletion of plasma SAP. The study was terminated due to observations of arrhythmia, the relation of which to GSK294 remains unclear. Conclusion and implications Using a preclinical screening cascade, we identified a pro-drug for a palindromic molecule with unique pharmacology (miridesap). The pro-drug depleted circulating SAP with a time course and extent similar to that of parenterally administered miridesap.

Background Up to 70% of patients with primary biliary cholangitis develop pruritus (itch) during the course of their disease. Treatment of pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis is challenging and novel therapies are needed. Ursodeoxycholic acid, the standard first-line treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, is largely ineffective for pruritus. We investigated the efficacy and safety of GSK2330672, a selective inhibitor of human ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT), in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with pruritus. Methods We conducted this phase 2a, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in two UK medical centres. Following 2 weeks of open placebo run-in, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a block size of 4 to receive GSK2330672 or placebo twice daily during two consecutive 14-day treatment periods in a crossover sequence. The treatment periods were followed by a 14-day single-blinded placebo follow-up period. The primary endpoints were safety of GSK2330672, assessed using clinical and laboratory parameters, and tolerability as rated by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. The secondary endpoints were changes in pruritus scores measured using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS), primary biliary cholangitis-40 (PBC-40) itch domain score and 5-D itch scale, changes in serum total bile acids and 7 alpha hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4), and changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters of ursodeoxycholic acid and its conjugates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01899703. Findings Between March 10, 2014, and Oct 7, 2015, we enrolled 22 patients. 11 patients were assigned to receive intervention followed by placebo (sequence 1), and 11 patients were assigned to receive placebo followed by intervention (sequence 2). One patient assigned to sequence 2 withdrew consent prior to receiving randomised therapy. One patient did not attend the placebo follow-up period, but was included in the final analysis. GSK2330672 treatment for 14 days was safe with no serious adverse events reported. Diarrhoea was the most frequent adverse event during treatment with GSK2330672 (seven with GSK2330672 vs one with placebo) and headache was the most frequent adverse event during treatment with placebo (seven with placebo vs six with GSK2330672). After GSK2330672 treatment, the percentage changes from baseline itch scores were −57% (95% CI −73 to −42, p Interpretation In patients with primary biliary cholangitis with pruritus, 14 days of ileal bile acid transporter inhibition by GSK2330672 was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events, and demonstrated efficacy in reducing pruritus severity. GSK2330672 has the potential to be a significant and novel advance for the treatment of pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis. Diarrhoea, the most common adverse event associated with GSK2330672 treatment, might limit the long-term use of this drug.

Background The utility of intramuscular (IM) oxytocin for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in resource-poor settings is limited by the requirement for temperature-controlled storage and skilled staff to administer the injection. We evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of a heat-stable, inhaled (IH) oxytocin formulation. Methods This phase 1, randomized, single-center, single-blind, dose-escalation, fixed-sequence study (NCT02542813) was conducted in healthy, premenopausal, non-pregnant, non-lactating women aged 18–45 years. Subjects initially received IM oxytocin 10 international units (IU) on day 1, IH placebo on day 2, and IH oxytocin 50 μg on day 3. Subjects were then randomized 4:1 using validated GSK internal software to IH placebo or ascending doses of IH oxytocin (200, 400, 600 μg). PK was assessed by comparing systemic exposure (maximum observed plasma concentration, area under the concentration-time curve, and plasma concentrations at 10 and 30 min post dose) for IH versus IM oxytocin. Adverse events (AEs), spirometry, laboratory tests, vital signs, electrocardiograms, physical examinations, and cardiac telemetry were assessed. Findings Subjects were recruited between September 14, 2015 and October 12, 2015. Of the 16 subjects randomized following initial dosing, 15 (IH placebo n = 3; IH oxytocin n = 12) completed the study. IH (all doses) and IM oxytocin PK profiles were comparable in shape. However, systemic exposure with IH oxytocin 400 μg most closely matched IM oxytocin 10 IU. Systemic exposure was approximately dose proportional for IH oxytocin. No serious AEs were reported. No clinically significant findings were observed for any safety parameters. Interpretation These data suggest that similar oxytocin systemic exposure can be achieved with IM and IH administration routes, and no safety concerns were identified with either route. The inhalation route may offer the opportunity to increase access to oxytocin for women giving birth in resource-poor settings., Highlights • First-in-human study of a heat-stable, dry powder oxytocin formulation for oral inhalation using a simple inhaler device • Data suggest that similar oxytocin systemic exposure can be achieved with intramuscular and inhaled administration routes. • This could provide an effective delivery system for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in women in resource-poor settings. Intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin is the gold standard preventative therapy for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). However, the utility of intramuscular oxytocin in resource-poor settings is limited by the requirement for temperature-controlled storage and skilled staff to administer the injection. The Innovation Countdown 2030 Initiative has estimated that the introduction of alternative, heat-stable formulations of oxytocin could prevent 146,000 maternal deaths over a period of 8 years. This study provides encouraging preliminary evidence that inhaled oxytocin can be delivered using a heat-stable dried powder for inhalation with no safety concerns. Establishing the clinical utility of this potential medicine will require further studies.

Background The promotility agents currently available to treat gastroparesis and feed intolerance in the critically ill are limited by adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetics of single doses of the novel gastric promotility agent motilin agonist camicinal (GSK962040) in critically ill feed-intolerant patients. Methods A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, study was performed in mechanically ventilated feed-intolerant patients [median age 55 (19–84), 73% male, APACHE II score 18 (5–37) with a gastric residual volume ≥200mL]. Gastric emptying and glucose absorption were measured both pre- and post-treatment after intragastric administration of 50mg (n = 15) camicinal and placebo (n = 8) using the13C-octanoic acid breath test (BTt1/2), acetaminophen concentrations, and 3-O-methylglucose concentrations respectively. Results Following 50mg enteral camicinal, there was a trend to accelerated gastric emptying [adjusted geometric means: pre-treatment BTt1/2117minutes vs. post- treatment 76minutes; 95% confidence intervals (CI; 0.39, 1.08) and increased glucose absorption (AUC240minpre-treatment: 28.63mmol.min/L vs. post-treatment: 71.63mmol.min/L; 95% CI (1.68, 3.72)]. When two patients who did not have detectable plasma concentrations of camicinal were excluded from analysis, camicinal accelerated gastric emptying (adjusted geometric means: pre-treatment BTt1/2121minutes vs. post-treatment 65minutes 95 % CI (0.32, 0.91) and increased glucose absorption (AUC240minpre-treatment: 33.04mmol.min/L vs. post-treatment: 74.59mmol.min/L; 95 % CI (1.478, 3.449). In those patients receiving placebo gastric emptying was similar pre- and post-treatment. Conclusions When absorbed, a single enteral dose of camicinal (50mg) accelerates gastric emptying and increases glucose absorption in feed-intolerant critically ill patients. Trial registration The study protocol was registered with the US NIH clinicaltrials.gov on 23 December 2009 (IdentifierNCT01039805).

Background Pruritus (itch) is a symptom commonly experienced by patients with cholestatic liver diseases such as primary biliary cholangitis (PBC, previously referred to as primary biliary cirrhosis). Bile acids (BAs) have been proposed as potential pruritogens in PBC. The ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) protein expressed in the distal ileum plays a key role in the enterohepatic circulation of BAs. Pharmacological inhibition of IBAT with GSK2330672 may reduce BA levels in the systemic circulation and improve pruritus. Methods This clinical study (BAT117213 study) is sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with associated exploratory studies supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). It is a phase 2a, multi-centre, randomised, double bind, placebo controlled, cross-over trial for PBC patients with pruritus. The primary objective is to investigate the safety and tolerability of repeat doses of GSK2330672, and explore whether GSK2330672 administration for 14days improves pruritus compared with placebo. The key outcomes include improvement in pruritus scores evaluated on a numerical rating scale and other PBC symptoms in an electronic diary completed twice daily by the patients. The secondary outcomes include the evaluation of the effect of GSK2330672 on total serum bile acid (BA) concentrations, serum markers of BA synthesis and steady-state pharmacokinetics of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Discussion BAT117213 study is the first randomised controlled crossover trial of ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor, a novel class of drug to treat pruritus in PBC. The main strengths of the trial are utility of a novel, study specific, electronic symptom diary as patient reported outcome to measure the treatment response objectively and the crossover design that allows estimating the treatment effect in a smaller number of patients. The outcome of this trial will inform the trial design of future development phase of the IBAT inhibitor drug. The trial will also provide opportunity to conduct metabonomic and gut microbiome studies as explorative and mechanistic research in patients with cholestatic pruritus. Trial registration EudraCT number: 2012-005531-84, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01899703, registered on 3rdJuly 2013

Systemic amyloidosis is a fatal disorder caused by pathological extracellular deposits of amyloid fibrils that are always coated with the normal plasma protein, serum amyloid P component (SAP). The small-molecule drug, miridesap, [(R)-1-[6-[(R)-2-carboxy-pyrrolidin-1-yl]-6-oxo-hexanoyl]pyrrolidine-2-carboxylic acid (CPHPC)] depletes circulating SAP but leaves some SAP in amyloid deposits. This residual SAP is a specific target for dezamizumab, a fully humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-SAP antibody that triggers immunotherapeutic clearance of amyloid. We report the safety, pharmacokinetics, and dose-response effects of up to three cycles of miridesap followed by dezamizumab in 23 adult subjects with systemic amyloidosis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01777243). Amyloid load was measured scintigraphically by amyloid-specific radioligand binding of 123I-labeled SAP or of 99mTc-3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid. Organ extracellular volume was measured by equilibrium magnetic resonance imaging and liver stiffness by transient elastography. The treatment was well tolerated with the main adverse event being self-limiting early onset rashes after higher antibody doses related to whole body amyloid load. Progressive dose-related clearance of hepatic amyloid was associated with improved liver function tests. 123I-SAP scintigraphy confirmed amyloid removal from the spleen and kidneys. No adverse cardiac events attributable to the intervention occurred in the six subjects with cardiac amyloidosis. Amyloid load reduction by miridesap treatment followed by dezamizumab has the potential to improve management and outcome in systemic amyloidosis.

Background: Delayed gastric emptying may impairʟ-dopa absorption, contributing to motor fluctuations. We evaluated the effect of camicinal (GSK962040), a gastroprokinetic, on the absorption ofʟ-dopa and symptoms of PD. Methods: Phase II, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Participants were randomized to receive camicinal 50 mg once‐daily (n = 38) or placebo (n = 20) for 7 to 9 days. Results:ʟ-dopa exposure was similar with coadministration of camicinal compared to placebo. Median time to maximumʟ-dopa concentration was reduced, indicating more rapid absorption ofʟ-dopa. Camicinal resulted in significant reduction in OFF time (–2.31 hours; 95% confidence interval: –3.71, –0.90), significant increase in ON time (+1.88 hours; 95% confidence interval: 0.28, 3.48) per day, and significant decrease in mean total MDS‐UPDRS score (–12.5; 95% confidence interval: –19.67, ‐5.29). Camicinal treatment was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: PD symptom improvement with camicinal occurred in parallel with more rapid absorption ofʟ-dopa. This study provides evidence of an improvement of the motor response toʟ-dopa in people with PD treated with camicinal 50 mg once‐daily compared with placebo, which will require further evaluation.

The opioid system is implicated in the hedonic and motivational processing of food, and in binge eating, a behaviour strongly linked to obesity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with the mu-opioid receptor antagonist GSK1521498 on eating behaviour in binge-eating obese subjects. Adults with body mass index ≥ 30 kg m(-2) and binge eating scale scores ≥ 19 received 1-week single-blind placebo run-in, and were then randomized to 28 days with either 2 mg day(-1) GSK1521498, 5 mg day(-1) GSK1521498 or placebo (N=21 per arm) in a double-blind parallel group design. The outcome measures were body weight, fat mass, hedonic and consummatory eating behaviour during inpatient food challenges, safety and pharmacokinetics. The primary analysis was the comparison of change scores in the higher-dose treatment group versus placebo using analysis of covariance at each relevant time point. GSK1521498 (2 mg and 5 mg) was not different from placebo in its effects on weight, fat mass and binge eating scores. However, compared with placebo, GSK1521498 5 mg day(-1) caused a significant reduction in hedonic responses to sweetened dairy products and reduced calorific intake, particularly of high-fat foods during ad libitum buffet meals, with some of these effects correlating with systemic exposure of GSK1521498. There were no significant effects of GSK1521498 2 mg day(-1) on eating behaviour, indicating dose dependency of pharmacodynamics. GSK1521498 was generally well tolerated and no previously unidentified safety signals were detected. The potential for these findings to translate into clinically significant effects in the context of binge eating and weight regain prevention requires further investigation.