Search

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist used for the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. It was the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of obesity. To date, numerous skin adverse reactions to liraglutide have been reported, but data regarding hypersensitivity reactions are scarce, raising concerns about its safety and clinical management. We present the case of a 56-year-old female patient with class 3 obesity who was started on subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda) by her endocrinologist. One month after starting the aforementioned treatment, the patient presented well-defined, round, erythematous pruriginous plaques surrounding the injection site, around 24 hours after the drug administration. A liraglutide-induced, delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction was suspected, which could be subsequently confirmed by allergy testing and histopathological study. This paper explores the clinical use of liraglutide, the occurrence of hypersensitivity reactions, diagnosis, management, and implications for future research. Understanding and managing liraglutide hypersensitivity is crucial to ensuring the safety and efficacy of this medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revised their estimate of the toxicity of bisphenol A (BPA) and, as a result, have recommended reducing the tolerable daily intake (TDI) by 20 000-fold. This would essentially ban the use of BPA in food packaging such as can liners, plastic food containers, and in consumer products. To come to this conclusion, EFSA used a systematic approach according to a pre-established protocol and included all guideline and nonguideline studies in their analysis. They found that Th-17 immune cells increased with very low exposure to BPA and used this endpoint to revise the TDI to be human health protective. A number of regulatory agencies including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have written formal disagreements with several elements of EFSA's proposal. The European Commission will now decide whether to accept EFSA's recommendation over the objections of EMA. If the Commission accepts EFSA's recommendation, it will be a landmark action using knowledge acquired through independent scientific studies focused on biomarkers of chronic disease to protect human health. The goal of this Perspective is to clearly articulate the monumental nature of this debate and decision and to explain what is at stake. Our perspective is that the weight of evidence clearly supports EFSA's proposal to reduce the TDI by 20 000-fold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classical approach to analyze pharmacokinetic (PK) data in bioequivalence studies aiming to compare two different formulations is to perform noncompartmental analysis (NCA) followed by two one-sided tests (TOST). In this regard, the PK parameters area under the curve (AUC) and $C_{\max}$ are obtained for both treatment groups and their geometric mean ratios are considered. According to current guidelines by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, the formulations are declared to be sufficiently similar if the $90\%$ confidence interval for these ratios falls between $0.8$ and $1.25 $. As NCA is not a reliable approach in case of sparse designs, a model-based alternative has already been proposed for the estimation of $\rm AUC$ and $C_{\max}$ using nonlinear mixed effects models. Here we propose another, more powerful test than the TOST and demonstrate its superiority through a simulation study both for NCA and model-based approaches. For products with high variability on PK parameters, this method appears to have closer type I errors to the conventionally accepted significance level of $0.05$, suggesting its potential use in situations where conventional bioequivalence analysis is not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Results Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. Conclusions For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time is of the essence in evaluating potential drugs and biologics for the treatment and prevention of COVID‐19. There are currently 876 randomized clinical trials (phase 2 and 3) of treatments for COVID‐19 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method with potential to improve precision and reduce the required sample size for a substantial number of these trials. Though covariate adjustment is recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, it is underutilized, especially for the types of outcomes (binary, ordinal, and time‐to‐event) that are common in COVID‐19 trials. To demonstrate the potential value added by covariate adjustment in this context, we simulated two‐arm, randomized trials comparing a hypothetical COVID‐19 treatment versus standard of care, where the primary outcome is binary, ordinal, or time‐to‐event. Our simulated distributions are derived from two sources: longitudinal data on over 500 patients hospitalized at Weill Cornell Medicine New York Presbyterian Hospital and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention preliminary description of 2449 cases. In simulated trials with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 1000 participants, we found substantial precision gains from using covariate adjustment–equivalent to 4–18% reductions in the required sample size to achieve a desired power. This was the case for a variety of estimands (targets of inference). From these simulations, we conclude that covariate adjustment is a low‐risk, high‐reward approach to streamlining COVID‐19 treatment trials. We provide an R package and practical recommendations for implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Roxadustat is an orally active hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor for the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) anemia. Methods This Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study examined patients with Stages 3–5 CKD, not on dialysis (NCT01887600). Patients were randomized (2:1) to oral roxadustat or placebo three times weekly for 52–104 weeks. This study examined two primary efficacy endpoints: European Union (European Medicines Agency)—hemoglobin (Hb) response, defined as Hb ≥11.0 g/dL that increased from baseline (BL) by ≥1.0 g/dL in patients with Hb >8.0 g/dL or ≥2.0 g/dL in patients with BL Hb ≤8.0 g/dL, without rescue therapy, during the first 24 weeks of treatment; US Food and Drug Administration—change in Hb from BL to the average Hb level during Weeks 28–52, regardless of rescue therapy. Secondary efficacy endpoints and safety were examined. Results A total of 594 patients were analyzed (roxadustat: 391; placebo: 203). Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was demonstrated for both primary efficacy endpoints: Hb response [odds ratio = 34.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.48–58.93] and change in Hb from BL [roxadustat – placebo: +1.692 (95% CI 1.52–1.86); both P < 0.001]. Superiority of roxadustat was demonstrated for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol change from BL, and time to first use of rescue medication (both P < 0.001). The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups (roxadustat: 87.7%, placebo: 86.7%). Conclusions Roxadustat demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo in terms of both Hb response rate and change in Hb from BL. The safety profiles of roxadustat and placebo were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]