Search

BACKGROUND: Raloxifene is a selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) indicated for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. In the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) study, an osteoporosis treatment trial, raloxifene therapy was associated with a reduced incidence of invasive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.09-0.30). OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes available preclinical and clinical data pertaining to a potential role for raloxifene in the prevention of breast cancer, and examines the mechanisms of action by which raloxifene may exert an effect. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified through a search of MEDLINE for English-language studies published between 1966 and January 2003. Search terms included raloxifene, keoxifene, tamoxifen, SERM, estrogen, estrogen receptor, breast, mammary, growth factors, and apoptosis. The reference lists of identified articles were reviewed for additional publications. RESULTS: Both preclinical and clinical data suggest a role for raloxifene in the prevention of breast cancer. Like tamoxifen, raloxifene acts as an estrogen antagonist in breast tissue through competitive binding to the ER. Raloxifene may also inhibit breast tissue proliferation through mechanisms independent of the ER. CONCLUSIONS: Given raloxifene's mechanism of action and the preclinical evidence for its role in breast cancer prevention, a clinically favorable effect seems feasible. Results of ongoing clinical studies will provide evidence to support or refute the clinical findings of MORE and thus raloxifene's role in the breast cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: To provide relevant background of the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), with examples, to assist the reader with the interpretation of iADRS findings from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study., Recent Findings: The iADRS is an integrated measure of global Alzheimer disease (AD) severity for use in the clinical trial environment. It provides a single score that captures commonalities across cognitive and functional ability domains, reflecting disease-related impairment, while minimizing noise not related to disease progression that may exist within each domain. In AD, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are expected to slow the rate of clinical decline, changing the trajectory of disease progression. The overall percent slowing of disease progression with treatment is a more informative outcome of effect than absolute point differences between treatment and placebo groups at any given time point because the latter is influenced by treatment period and disease severity. The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial was a phase 2 study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of donanemab in participants with early symptomatic AD; the primary outcome measure was the change from baseline to 76 weeks on the iADRS. In the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study, donanemab slowed disease progression by 32% at 18 months ( p = 0.04 vs placebo), demonstrating clinical efficacy. At the patient level, one can assess whether the DMT effect is clinically meaningful by estimating the threshold of change consistent with clinically meaningful worsening; based on the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ findings, treatment with donanemab would delay reaching this threshold by approximately 6 months., Summary: The iADRS is capable of accurately describing clinical changes associated with disease progression and detecting treatment effects and is an effective assessment tool for use in clinical trials of individuals with early symptomatic AD., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

Amyloid and tau biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease are widely recognized diagnostic tools for the identification of Alzheimer's disease pathology antemortem and are recommended by the most recent clinical and research guidelines. Approved biomarkers include positron emission tomography (PET)- and fluid-based markers derived from cerebrospinal fluid and, more recently, plasma. These biomarkers are still infrequently used in clinical practice, potentially due to challenges in access to and understanding of individual assay information and methodology. We provide an overview of the diagnostic biomarkers for amyloid and tau pathology that are currently available in the US and/or EU for clinical use. Available performance data from both labels/instructions for use and the scientific literature (with focus on autopsy or PET as standard of truth) are summarized to help healthcare providers navigate the biomarker landscape. All available PET amyloid and tau biomarkers demonstrate high accuracy in identifying amyloid and tau Alzheimer's disease pathology, respectively, at autopsy. Among cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, all showed accurate prediction of Alzheimer's disease pathology, either based on autopsy or PET findings; greater accuracy was evident for concentration ratios (Aβ42/40 or P-tau181/Aβ42) versus individual biomarker concentrations. Among plasma biomarkers, Aβ42/40 and P-tau181 demonstrated high agreement with PET findings. Overall, we conclude that commercially available PET, cerebrospinal fluid and plasma assays accurately identify Alzheimer's disease amyloid and tau pathology. The recent development of fully automated tests for fluid-based biomarkers improves test reliability. The continued development of plasma biomarkers holds promise for the future management of patients with Alzheimer's disease., Competing Interests: All authors are full time employees and minor stockholders at Eli Lilly and Company.

In Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials, disease-modifying therapies are expected to slow the rate of disease progression. Treatment effects are evaluated using a validated clinical scale as the difference between treatment and placebo in mean change from baseline to endpoint. Understanding the clinical relevance of this metric is not necessarily intuitive. Expressing active treatment-placebo difference as a time metric (i.e., months saved with treatment) has potential to provide a metric that is more easily and consistently interpreted. Using data from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study, time component tests (TCTs) were employed to determine the time saved with donanemab (an amyloid lowering drug) treatment. At study endpoint (Week 76), disease progression was delayed by 5.3 months and 5.2 months as measured by the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), respectively., Competing Interests: Dickson is a full-time employee of Pentara Corporation (Pentara consults with and receives payment from clients working in the neurodegenerative space, particularly in Alzheimer’s disease [including Eli Lilly and Company]; Pentara was contracted to perform the statistical analyses used in this manuscript); Hendrix is the sole owner of Pentara Corporation; Mallinckrodt is a full-time employee of Pentara Corporation, and a minor stockholder in Eli Lilly and other pharma companies through index mutual funds; Wessels, Dowsett, Sparks, Chatterjee are full time employees and minor stockholders at Eli Lilly and Company.

Background: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only., Methods: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication., Results: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo ( p  < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only., Conclusions: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans. Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Background: The integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) is a validated cognitive/functional composite that effectively captures cognitive and functional decline over a broad spectrum of disease. The clinical meaningfulness of change on iADRS can be supported by establishing an association with changes on important health outcome measures., Objective: To evaluate the relationship between change on the iADRS and changes in health outcomes in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), or mild or moderate AD dementia using placebo data from four AD clinical trials and data from one AD observational study., Methods: Analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) models were used to estimate the relationship between 18-month change on the iADRS and changes on health outcome measures (related to cost, quality of life, and caregiver burden). The regression coefficients for the iADRS were used to compute impact of natural disease progression and disease-modifying treatment on health outcomes. Additional ANCOVAs were conducted to understand whether cognition and/or function was the underlying explanation of any association between iADRS and health outcome change., Results: Across datasets and disease stages, a worsening on the iADRS was significantly associated with increased societal costs, caregiver burden (time and distress) and worsening in measures of patient quality of life., Conclusion: Decline on the iADRS was associated with worsening in health outcome measures. These findings suggest that the iADRS can be used in clinical trials as a proxy measure of clinically meaningful outcomes of AD progression.

Background: We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups - lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity., Results: Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg ( p  < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity., Conclusions: These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks. Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810.

Introduction: Migraine is associated with substantial functional impairment and affects many aspects of daily life., Methods: Using data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies) and GLADIATOR (an open-label, phase 3 study enrolling patients who had completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN), we assessed the effects of lasmiditan on migraine-related functional disability at multiple time points from 0.5 to 48 h post dose by asking patients to rate how much the migraine was interfering with normal activities. Pooled data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (SAMURAI + SPARTAN) and data from GLADIATOR were analyzed using the intention-to-treat populations., Results: For SPARTAN + SAMURAI, significantly more patients who received lasmiditan at any dose versus placebo reported freedom from migraine-related functional disability at every timepoint from 2 h post dose, and this difference persisted to 48 h (p < 0.05). Significant differences from placebo in freedom from migraine-related functional disability commenced at 1 h post dose for lasmiditan 200 mg, 1.5 h for lasmiditan 100 mg, and 2 h for lasmiditan 50 mg. Findings from GLADIATOR supported those from SAMURAI + SPARTAN., Conclusion: All doses of lasmiditan resulted in an improvement in migraine-related functional disability that persisted to 48 h. In SAMURAI + SPARTAN, a significant difference from placebo was observed as early as 1 h post dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), and GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).

Objective: To review the published findings relevant to migraine and driving performance, with an intent to encourage discussion on research which may broaden understanding in this area and help educate healthcare providers and their patients., Background: Motor vehicle crashes result in more than 35,000 deaths and more than 2 million injuries annually in the United States. Migraine is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world, and many symptoms associated with migraine attacks have the potential to negatively influence driving ability., Methods: We reviewed the published findings related to migraine and driving performance. Study findings relevant to symptoms of migraine and their potential effect on driving were also reviewed. This required a more expansive exploration of the literature beyond migraine, for example, review of the literature relating to the effect of pain, sleepiness, visual disturbances, or vertigo on driving. Finally, the potential effects of treatment for migraine on driving were reviewed., Results: Literature on the effect of migraine on driving performance is sparse and, in general published studies on the topic have a number of limitations. Based on review of the literature pertaining to other disorders, it seems feasible that some symptoms occurring as part of the migraine attack could impact driving performance, although formal study in this area is lacking. Many of the approved treatments for migraine have the potential to impact driving, yet this has not been specifically studied, and the extent to which these risks are communicated to patients is not clear., Conclusion: The impact of migraine on driving performance has been largely neglected, with few studies specifically designed to address the topic, and relevant studies were generally small with limited control of confounders. This area requires more focus, given a potential for impact on road safety., (© 2019 Eli Lilly and Company. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine., Methods: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan., Results: The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo., Conclusions: A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo., Trial Registration: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Background: Episodic cluster headache is a disabling neurologic disorder that is characterized by daily headache attacks that occur over periods of weeks or months. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be a preventive treatment for cluster headache., Methods: We enrolled patients who had at least one attack every other day, at least four total attacks, and no more than eight attacks per day during a baseline assessment, as well as a history of cluster headache periods lasting at least 6 weeks, and randomly assigned them to receive galcanezumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously at baseline and at 1 month. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 after receipt of the first dose. The key secondary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks at week 3. Safety was also assessed., Results: Recruitment was halted before the trial reached the planned sample size of 162 because too few volunteers met the eligibility criteria. Of 106 enrolled patients, 49 were randomly assigned to receive galcanezumab and 57 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) number of cluster headache attacks per week in the baseline period was 17.8±10.1 in the galcanezumab group and 17.3±10.1 in the placebo group. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 was 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (difference, 3.5 attacks per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). The percentage of patients who had a reduction of at least 50% in headache frequency at week 3 was 71% in the galcanezumab group and 53% in the placebo group. There were no substantial between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events, except that 8% of the patients in the galcanezumab group had injection-site pain., Conclusions: Galcanezumab administered subcutaneously at a dose of 300 mg once monthly reduced the weekly frequency of attacks of episodic cluster headache across weeks 1 through 3 after the initial injection, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02397473.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Trial Design: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies conducted in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and Germany (SPARTAN only). Individuals with migraine were randomized to receive oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo within 4 hours of onset of a migraine attack. The aim of this analysis was to characterize dizziness reported with lasmiditan treatment., Methods: Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for the current post hoc analyses. Onset time and duration of dizziness were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on presence/absence of dizziness were performed for the endpoints of interference with daily activity, patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain at 2 hours, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours based on adverse events occurring within 2 hours of taking study drug., Results: Dizziness incidence was as follows: Placebo (N = 1262), 2.9% (0.1% severe); lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 654), 8.6% (0.3% severe); lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1265), 14.9% (0.7% severe); and lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1258), 16.8% (1.4% severe). Among participants who received lasmiditan as their first dose, risk factors for dizziness were higher lasmiditan dosage, being non-Hispanic/Latino, mild or moderate severity of migraine attack, and lower body mass index. The median time to onset of dizziness was generally 30-40 minutes, and the median duration was 1.5-2 hours. The presence of dizziness did not appear to have a negative influence on lasmiditan's effect on daily activity, PGIC, freedom from pain, or MBS. Overall, 21 participants experienced vertigo: Lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 2 (0.3%); 100 mg, n = 11 (0.9%); 200 mg, n = 7 (0.6%); and placebo, n = 1 (<0.1%)., Conclusion: The incidence of dizziness with lasmiditan increased with dose. Dizziness was generally mild or moderate in severity and of quick onset and short duration. The presence of dizziness did not influence drug efficacy., (© 2019 American Headache Society.)

Background: We assessed the safety profile of lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist without vasoconstrictive activity being developed as an acute therapy for migraine., Methods: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were Phase 3 double-blind studies of patients with migraine, randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo to be taken within 4 hours of onset of migraine pain. Safety data from the studies were integrated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring within 48 hours of first dose) were considered in the analyses., Results: The safety population comprised 1262 patients assigned placebo, and 654, 1265, and 1258 assigned lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, respectively. There were no deaths; serious adverse events were reported for seven patients (placebo, n = 2 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 3 [0.2%]). Patients reporting ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse events were: Placebo, n = 174 (13.5%); lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 166 (25.4%); lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 458 (36.2%); and lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 510 (40.6%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, muscular weakness and hypoesthesia. There were no ischemic events., Conclusions: As a centrally-penetrant drug, lasmiditan use was associated with neurologic treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting., Trial Registration at Clinicaltrials.gov: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale's cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) has been widely used as an outcome measure in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) clinical trials. In its original form (ADAS-Cog11), the scale has been used successfully in mild-to-moderate AD dementia populations, but its use is more limited in the study of earlier disease (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or mild dementia due to AD) owing to lack of appropriate sensitivity of some items. With recent focus on earlier treatment, efforts have focused on the development of more sensitive tools, including the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), a global assessment tool to evaluate both cognition and function. The ability of the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB to detect treatment group differences in the clinical trial environment has not been systematically studied. The aim of this analysis was to compare the utility of these tools in detecting treatment group differences, by reviewing study findings identified through advanced searches of clinicaltrials.gov and Ovid, and press releases and scientific presentations. Findings from placebo-controlled studies of ≥ 6m duration and enrolling >100 participants were included; reporting of both the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB at endpoint was also a requirement. Of the >300 records identified, 34 studies fulfilled the criteria. There were significant placebo versus active drug group differences based on findings from at least one measure for 14 studies. The ADAS-Cog detected treatment differences more frequently than the CDR-SB. Based on these and previously published findings, the ADAS-Cog appears more useful than the CDR-SB in detecting treatment group differences., Competing Interests: Wessels, Dowsett and Sims are full time employees and minor stock holders of Eli Lilly and Company.

The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Rating Scale (iADRS) is a composite tool that combines scores from the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study - instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). It demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties, and is effective in capturing both disease progression and separation of placebo and active drug effect. We assessed the performance of iADRS in the solanezumab EXPEDITION3 study, an 80-week, placebo-controlled study of individuals with mild AD dementia. A statistically significant difference between placebo and active drug was observed for iADRS score change from baseline at Week 28 (p=0.028) through Week 80 (p=0.015). Across the Phase 3 solanezumab trials, iADRS was the only tool that consistently differentiated between solanezumab and placebo groups. These findings suggest that the iADRS is a useful integrated measurement tool for treatment trials of individuals with mild AD dementia., Competing Interests: All authors are full time employees and minor stockholders at Eli Lilly and Company

Basic research advances in recent years have furthered our understanding of the natural history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). It is now recognized that pathophysiological changes begin many years prior to clinical manifestations of disease and the spectrum of AD spans from clinically asymptomatic to severely impaired. Defining AD purely by its clinical presentation is thus artificial and efforts have been made to recognize the disease based on both clinical and biomarker findings. Advances with biomarkers have also prompted a shift in how the disease is considered as a clinico-pathophysiological entity, with an increasing appreciation that AD should not only be viewed with discrete and defined clinical stages, but as a multifaceted process moving along a seamless continuum. Acknowledging this concept is critical to understanding the development process for disease-modifying therapies, and for initiating effective diagnostic and disease management options. In this article, we discuss the concept of a disease continuum from pathophysiological, biomarker, and clinical perspectives, and highlight the importance of considering AD as a continuum rather than discrete stages. While the pathophysiology of AD has still not been elucidated completely, there is ample evidence to support researchers and clinicians embracing the view of a disease continuum in their study, diagnosis, and management of the disease.

The global impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD) continues to increase, and focused efforts are needed to address this immense public health challenge. National leaders have set a goal to prevent or effectively treat AD by 2025. In this paper, we discuss the path to 2025, and what is feasible in this time frame given the realities and challenges of AD drug development, with a focus on disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Under the current conditions, only drugs currently in late Phase 1 or later will have a chance of being approved by 2025. If pipeline attrition rates remain high, only a few compounds at best will meet this time frame. There is an opportunity to reduce the time and risk of AD drug development through an improvement in trial design; better trial infrastructure; disease registries of well-characterized participant cohorts to help with more rapid enrollment of appropriate study populations; validated biomarkers to better detect disease, determine risk and monitor disease progression as well as predict disease response; more sensitive clinical assessment tools; and faster regulatory review. To implement change requires efforts to build awareness, educate and foster engagement; increase funding for both basic and clinical research; reduce fragmented environments and systems; increase learning from successes and failures; promote data standardization and increase wider data sharing; understand AD at the basic biology level; and rapidly translate new knowledge into clinical development. Improved mechanistic understanding of disease onset and progression is central to more efficient AD drug development and will lead to improved therapeutic approaches and targets. The opportunity for more than a few new therapies by 2025 is small. Accelerating research and clinical development efforts and bringing DMTs to market sooner would have a significant impact on the future societal burden of AD. As these steps are put in place and plans come to fruition, e.g., approval of a DMT, it can be predicted that momentum will build, the process will be self-sustaining, and the path to 2025, and beyond, becomes clearer.

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in older men and are frequently associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The relationship between BPH and endogenous total testosterone (TT) levels has been widely studied. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to determine the association between LUTS and endogenous TT levels in a subset of men participating in the 2013 Prostate Cancer Awareness Week, a U.S. community-based prostate cancer screening program. Men completed the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) questionnaire, prostate size was estimated by a digital rectal examination, and serum TT and prostate-specific antigen levels were measured. Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with prostate size category (r = +.03, p = .69): normal, 419.2 (n = 106); enlarged, 394.7 (n = 71); abnormal, 416.4 (n = 7); and abnormal/suspicious, 515.2 (n = 19). Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with I-PSS category (r = -.06, p = .40): none, 468.5 (n = 15); mild, 414.0 (n = 138); moderate, 397.4 (n = 66); and severe, 437.9 (n = 7). Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with I-PSS quality of life rating (r = -.13, p = .055): delighted, 474.5 (n = 43); pleased, 424.6 (n = 65); mostly satisfied, 361.2 (n = 63); mixed, 448.2 (n = 29); mostly dissatisfied, 337.2 (n = 17); and unhappy, 435.8 (n = 6). Adjustment for prostate size or prostate-specific antigen levels yielded similar findings. In conclusion, endogenous TT levels did not correlate with LUTS or prostate size, and these findings support the saturation theory in which TT is not able to induce further androgen-stimulated prostate tissue growth due to receptor saturation. Any worsening of LUTS following testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men may be related to stimulation of prostatic cells previously deprived of testosterone., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Purpose: We determined the effect of testosterone solution 2% on total testosterone level and the 2 symptoms of hypogonadism, sex drive and energy level., Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled, 16-week study to compare the effect of testosterone and placebo on the proportion of men with a testosterone level within the normal range (300 to 1,050 ng/dl) upon treatment completion. We also assessed the impact of testosterone on sex drive and energy level measured using SAID (Sexual Arousal, Interest and Drive scale) and HED (Hypogonadism Energy Diary), respectively. A total of 715 males 18 years old or older with total testosterone less than 300 ng/dl and at least 1 symptom of testosterone deficiency (decreased energy and/or decreased sexual drive) were randomized to 60 mg topical testosterone solution 2% or placebo once daily., Results: Of study completers 73% in the testosterone vs 15% in the placebo group had a testosterone level within the normal range at study end point (p <0.001). Participants assigned to testosterone showed greater baseline to end point improvement in SAID scores (low sex drive subset p <0.001 vs placebo) and HED scores (low energy subset p = 0.02 vs placebo, not significant at prespecified p <0.01). No major adverse cardiovascular or venous thrombotic events were reported in the testosterone group. The incidence of increased hematocrit was higher with testosterone vs placebo (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Once daily testosterone solution 2% for 12 weeks was efficacious in restoring normal testosterone levels and improving sexual drive in hypogonadal men. Improvement was also seen in energy levels on HED though not at the prespecified p <0.01. No new safety signals were identified., (Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: EXPEDITION and EXPEDITION2 were identically designed placebo-controlled phase 3 studies assessing effects of solanezumab, an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody binding soluble amyloid-β peptide, on cognitive and functional decline over 80 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Primary findings for both studies have been published., Methods: Secondary analyses of efficacy, biomarker, and safety endpoints in the pooled (EXPEDTION + EXPEDITION2) mild AD population were performed., Results: In the mild AD population, less cognitive and functional decline was observed with solanezumab (n = 659) versus placebo (n = 663), measured by Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale Instrumental ADLs. Baseline-to-endpoint changes did not differ between treatment groups for Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale, basic items of the ADCS-ADL, and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes. Plasma/cerebrospinal fluid biomarker findings indicated target engagement by solanezumab. Solanezumab demonstrated acceptable safety. Efficacy findings for the moderate AD population are also provided., Discussion: These findings describe solanezumab effects on efficacy/safety measures in a mild AD population. Another phase 3 study, EXPEDITION3, will investigate solanezumab's effects in a mild AD population., (Copyright © 2016 Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Most Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants multinationally. Yet, few data exist to guide investigators and sponsors regarding the types of patients enrolled in these studies and whether participant characteristics vary by region., Methods: We used data derived from four multinational phase III trials in mild to moderate AD to examine whether regional differences exist with regard to participant demographics, safety reporting, and baseline scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). We assigned 31 participating nations to 7 geographic regions: North America, South America/Mexico, Western Europe/Israel, Eastern Europe/Russia, Australia/South Africa, Asia, and Japan., Results: North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Australia/South Africa enrolled similar proportions of men, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers, and participants with spouse study partners, whereas Asia, Eastern Europe/Russia, and South America/Mexico had lower proportions for these variables. North America and South America/Mexico enrolled older subjects, whereas Asia and South America/Mexico enrolled less-educated participants than the remaining regions. Approved AD therapy use differed among regions (range: 73% to 92%) and was highest in North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Japan. Dual therapy was most frequent in North America (48%). On the MMSE, North America, Western Europe/Israel, Japan, and Australia/South Africa had higher (better) scores, and Asia, South America/Mexico, and Eastern Europe/Russia had lower scores. Eastern Europe/Russia had more impaired ADAS-cog11 scores than all other regions. Eastern Europe/Russia and South America/Mexico had more impaired scores for the ADCS-ADL and the CDR-SB. Mean scores for the CDR-SB in Asia were milder than all regions except Japan. NPI scores were lower in Asia and Japan than in all other regions. Participants in North America and Western Europe/Israel reported more adverse events than those in Eastern Europe/Russia and Japan., Conclusions: These findings suggest that trial populations differ across geographic regions on most baseline characteristics and that multinational enrollment is associated with sample heterogeneity. The data provide initial guidance with regard to the regional differences that contribute to this heterogeneity and are important to consider when planning global trials.

Introduction: To facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology., Methods: Four similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)., Results: Regions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline., Conclusions: These data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm., Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00594568 - IDENTITY. Registered 11 January 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00762411 - IDENTITY2. Registered 26 September 2008 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 - EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 - EXPEDITION2. Registered 18 May 2009.

Objective: Since testosterone levels exhibit a circadian variation with peak levels in the morning, evidence-based guidelines recommend measuring morning total testosterone (TT) levels as the initial diagnostic test for androgen deficiency. However, it has been suggested that morning blood draw may not be necessary in older men due to a blunted circadian rhythm. We sought to determine whether it is possible to expand the morning sampling window for measurement of TT., Research Design and Methods: TT levels were measured in a subset of men (mean age of 61 years) participating in the 2013 Prostate Cancer Awareness Week., Results: TT levels measured in blood drawn from 8 to 11 AM (n = 229) differed significantly from those drawn outside this window (n = 442) (411.7 vs 368.3 ng/dl; p = 0.0003). Differences in TT levels were evident across five blood draw time windows (p = < 0.0001) and persisted after adjustment for age and BMI. TT levels in blood drawn from 2 to 5 PM (344.3 ng/dl) and 5 to 8 PM (334.4 ng/dl) differed significantly from that drawn from 8 to 11 AM (p < 0.05), while TT levels from 11 AM to 2 PM (396.5 ng/dl) and 8 PM to 8 AM (373.4 ng/dl) did not (p = 0.90 and 0.73, respectively)., Conclusion: Based on these findings, it may be possible to expand the blood draw time window for measurement of serum TT. This community-based study was not prospectively design to determine the most appropriate blood draw window for TT measurement. Only a single TT measurement was made without consideration for day-to-day variability, and TT levels were not measured in the same men at different blood draw times.

Background: Remission is the goal in depression, but in practice many patients only experience a partial response to treatment. We sought to determine the prevalence, management and subsequent outcomes of partial responder patients., Methods: Patients enrolled in the naturalistic Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression subscale (HADS-D) score >10 at baseline who received only SSRI(s) between 0 and 3 months comprised the study cohort (n=1147). Patients were categorized as remitters, partial responders or non-responders at 3 months and then followed up at 6 months., Results: At 3 months, 29.4% of the study population were considered non-responders, 27.6% were partial responders, and 39.3% were remitters. Most partial responders at 3 months remained on the same SSRI for the next 3 months. Of the 247 partial responders at 3 months and remained on the same SSRI(s) between 3 and 6 months, 10.9% met criteria for non-response at 6 months, 32.4% remained partial responders, and 56.3% achieved remission. Quality of life outcomes for the partial responders were significantly worse than those in remission (p<0.05)., Limitations: FINDER was an observational study; the current analysis was conducted post-hoc. Multivariable methods were not applied and findings are primarily descriptive and exploratory., Conclusions: Partial response is common and patients in partial response have a poorer quality of life than those achieving remission. Despite this, the majority of partial responders continue to take the same SSRI. Our findings underscore the importance of continuing to strive for remission., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Semagacestat, a γ-secretase inhibitor, demonstrated an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in a Phase 3 study of patients with Alzheimer's disease (IDENTITY trials), and clinical development was halted. To assist in future development of γ-secretase inhibitors, we report detailed safety findings from the IDENTITY study, with emphasis on those that might be mechanistically linked to γ-secretase inhibition., Research Design and Methods: The IDENTITY trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of semagacestat (100 mg and 140 mg), in which 1537 patients age 55 years and older with probable Alzheimer's disease were randomized. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported by body system along with pertinent laboratory, vital sign, and ECG findings., Results: Semagacestat treatment was associated with increased reporting of suspected Notch-related adverse events (gastrointestinal, infection, and skin cancer related). Other relevant safety findings associated with semagacestat treatment included cognitive and functional worsening, skin-related TEAEs, renal and hepatic changes, increased QT interval, and weight loss. With few exceptions, differences between semagacestat and placebo treatment groups were no longer significant after cessation of treatment with active drug., Conclusions: Many of these safety findings can be attributed to γ-secretase inhibition, and may be valuable to researchers developing γ-secretase inhibitors.

Background: Duloxetine hydrochloride is approved for the treatment or management of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and fibromyalgia in the United States. These conditions affect millions of women, including those of childbearing potential. In pregnancy, pharmacological treatment is justified only if the potential benefits outweigh potential risks to mother and fetus, neonate or infant. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women treated with duloxetine. Post-marketing surveillance is an important tool for the assessment of drug safety in pregnancy in a naturalistic setting., Objective: Using safety surveillance and spontaneous adverse events reporting databases, to provide pregnancy outcomes statistics as they relate to duloxetine exposure., Study Design and Setting: This was an analysis of pregnancy outcome data captured in Lilly Safety System (LSS) (a safety database for the collection, storage, and reporting of adverse events involving Lilly Products), through October 31 2011 and the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) database through September 30 2011. Both databases provided spontaneous reporting data from the time of first duloxetine marketing authorization in 2004; in addition, the LSS Database includes serious adverse event and pregnancy data from clinical trials since the creation of the database in 1983., Patients: Patients who had received duloxetine during pregnancy and reported pregnancy outcomes., Main Outcome Measures: Normal and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Abnormal outcomes comprised spontaneous abortion, premature/post-term birth, congenital anomaly, perinatal/post-perinatal complication, still birth, and ectopic pregnancy. Descriptive statistics are provided for LSS data. A disproportionality analysis was performed using the Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) for the AERS data. The lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of EBGM (EB05) ≥1 was used as the threshold to determine disproportionality., Results: In the LSS analysis, 400 pregnancy cases with a known pregnancy outcome were identified. Of the 233 prospectively reported cases, 170 (73%) were spontaneous reports; the remainder were reported from clinical trials (58 [25%]) or post-marketing studies (5 [2%]). In most of these cases (74%), patients received duloxetine for the treatment of depression. Pregnancy outcomes were normal in 143 cases, and abnormal in 90 cases. Abnormal pregnancy outcomes were mainly spontaneous abortions (n=41), post/perinatal conditions (n=25) or premature births (n=19). In patients with abnormal pregnancy outcomes, relevant concomitant medication use and relevant medical history were more frequently reported, compared to those with normal pregnancy outcomes (p<0.05). For the AERS database analysis, EB05 was less than one for all clusters of abnormal pregnancy outcomes; there was no disproportionality of reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes for patients treated with duloxetine versus all other drugs or selected antidepressants., Conclusion: While limitations of these data are recognized, the information available to date from these two data sources suggest that the frequency of abnormal outcomes reported in duloxetine pregnancy cases is generally consistent with the historic control rates in the general population.

The Generations trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, compared arzoxifene 20 mg/day and placebo in 9,354 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N=5,252) or low bone mass (N=4,102). Primary outcomes were vertebral fracture in the osteoporotic population and invasive breast cancer in all study participants. Here, we report the detailed breast cancer findings from the trial. Breast cancers were detected by annual mammograms and clinical examination. After 48 months follow-up, breast cancer incidence was compared between treatment groups by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status and baseline risk factors. Baseline breast cancer risk factors, including age, estimated Gail risk, and bone mineral density, were well balanced between treatment groups. A total of 75 breast cancers occurred 53 in the placebo group and 22 in the arzoxifene group (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.68, P<0.001). There were 62 invasive breast cancers, 39 identified as invasive ER-positive (placebo 30, arzoxifene 9; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.63, P=0.001) and 30 identified as invasive PR-positive (placebo 23, arzoxifene 7; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.71, P=0.003). Breast cancer risk reduction with arzoxifene was similar between Gail risk groups (P interaction=0.31) and between low bone mass and osteoporosis groups (P interaction=0.35). Although generally well tolerated, there was a significant increase in venous thromboembolism, vasomotor symptoms, muscle cramps, and some gynecological events with arzoxifene. These findings demonstrate that in this study arzoxifene reduced the risk of ER-positive breast cancer in this population of postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis, an effect similar to that seen with other SERMs.

Unlabelled: Arzoxifene increased bone mineral density and decreased bone turnover to a significantly greater extent than raloxifene. The hot flush incidence was lower with arzoxifene than raloxifene., Introduction: To assess the effect of arzoxifene versus raloxifene on change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis., Methods: In this 12-month study (NEXT trial), participants were randomly assigned to arzoxifene 20 mg/day (N = 158) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (N = 162). All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Change in LS BMD was assessed by DXA. Secondary objectives included assessment of femoral neck (FN) and total hip BMD, serum bone turnover markers, and safety., Results: Treatment groups were similar at baseline (mean age 63 years, mean LS BMD T-score -2.9). At 12 months, the increase in LS BMD with arzoxifene was greater than with raloxifene (+2.75% vs. +1.66%), as was FN and total hip BMD (P < 0.05). For LS and FN, this effect was also evident at 6 months. Arzoxifene reduced bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene at 3, 6, and 12 months (P < 0.05). The proportion of women reporting ≥ 1 adverse event did not differ between treatment groups, nor did vaginal bleeding. No cases of endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, or cancer were reported. Nasopharyngitis and bronchitis were reported more frequently with arzoxifene versus raloxifene (10.1% vs. 2.5%, and 5.1% vs. 0%, respectively) and new/worsening hot flushes were reported less frequently with arzoxifene (7.0% vs. 16.7%) (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Arzoxifene increased BMD and suppressed bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene and resulted in a lower incidence of new/worsening hot flushes. Based on subsequent findings from a fracture outcome study, this difference did not translate into improved fracture efficacy.

Unlabelled: In this Phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with low bone, arzoxifene (a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)) significantly reduced bone turnover marker levels and increased bone mineral density (BMD) versus placebo. Arzoxifene generally had greater effects on bone turnover and BMD than raloxifene, a SERM in current clinical use. Arzoxifene's safety profile appeared similar to raloxifene., Introduction: This 6-month, Phase 2, double-blind, placebo- and raloxifene-controlled study was designed to assess the effects of arzoxifene on bone turnover and overall safety in postmenopausal women with low bone mass., Methods: Postmenopausal women (N = 219; mean age, 59 years) with a T-score between -1 and -2.5 were randomly assigned to daily arzoxifene 5, 10, 20, or 40 mg, raloxifene 60 mg, or placebo. All received daily calcium., Results: All arzoxifene doses significantly reduced osteocalcin (primary endpoint), type 1 collagen C-telopeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide versus placebo, and increased lumbar spine BMD. Arzoxifene generally had greater effects on bone turnover and BMD than raloxifene. Arzoxifene decreased cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and fibrinogen versus placebo. Endometrial thickness change with arzoxifene was not significantly different from placebo or raloxifene; no cases of endometrial hyperplasia or adenocarcinoma were observed. Adverse event reporting with arzoxifene was similar to that with raloxifene, as were hot flush and night sweat reporting., Conclusions: Arzoxifene suppressed bone turnover and increased BMD. Within the limitations of this study, the endometrial safety profile of arzoxifene appeared similar to that of raloxifene. While no clear dose effect was evident, arzoxifene 20 and 40 mg/day appeared the optimal doses for reducing bone turnover.

Background: The scientific publishing practices of the pharmaceutical industry have been heavily criticized in recent years due to the inherent conflict of interest that arises when a pharmaceutical company publishes findings around its own drugs., Scope: Eli Lilly and Company ('Lilly') strives for transparency in its day-to-day activities, and, here, shares its principles, policies and practices on publishing "Lilly-sponsored" research., Findings: A conflict of interest does not necessarily equate to biased presentation of research findings, and operating a successful, for-profit business and maintaining a focus on improving the health of patients are not mutually exclusive goals. There is, however, potential for bias, and it is incumbent upon a for-profit to develop publication principles, policies and practices to address this. To this end, Lilly's Principles of Medical Research states that 'Lilly discloses publicly all medical research results that are important to patients, healthcare providers or payers--whether favorable or unfavorable to a Lilly product--in an accurate, objective, and balanced manner ...' The preparation of publications of Lilly-sponsored research involves close collaboration between external (i.e., academic or otherwise non-industry employees) and Lilly scientific researchers (including scientific writers), with both serving as authors. Lilly does not support 'ghost' or 'guest' authorship. Authorship is not just recognition of contribution but also public acknowledgement of responsibility for content, and all authors are expected to take an active role in developing the manuscript in line with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-based authorship requirements. This is agreed to by authors before the manuscript is started. Lilly provides external authors with access to the trial data for manuscript development. Lilly does not pay external authors for their involvement in manuscript development. Scientific writers at Lilly, often with advanced scientific degrees, offer both scientific and writing expertise in manuscript development and play a project management role. Their role is transparent, and they are included as authors or appropriately acknowledged., Conclusion: Lilly has an ongoing commitment to appropriate publishing practices. Sharing company publication principles, policies and practices is one way to demonstrate this commitment and encourage and facilitate open dialogue among all those involved in drug development.

The inflammatory response, which has both genetic and environmental components, is a central mechanism linking oral and systemic diseases. We hypothesized that dental plaque accumulation over 21 days in the experimental gingivitis model would elicit systemic inflammatory responses [change in white blood cell (WBC) count and neutrophil activity], and that these responses would differ by gender/race. We recruited 156 healthy young adults, including black and white males and females. Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), systemic WBC counts, and peripheral neutrophil oxidative activity were recorded. Overall, 128 participants completed the study. During the experimental phase, the correlation between PI and GI was 0.79. Total WBC and neutrophil counts did not change. Neutrophil activity increased in blacks but not whites, suggesting that there may be racial differences in the inflammatory response to dental plaque accumulation.

Objective and Methods: In this article, we provide an interdisciplinary concise review of the effects of raloxifene on breast, bone, and reproductive organs, as well as the adverse events that may be associated with its use., Results: Raloxifene has been shown to prevent osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW) with low bone mass and prevent vertebral fractures in those with osteoporosis/low bone mass; it has not been shown to reduce the risk of nonvertebral fractures. Raloxifene reduces the risk of invasive breast cancer in PMW with osteoporosis or at high risk of breast cancer. The risk of venous thromboembolism has been consistently shown to be increased with raloxifene, so it should not be used in women at high risk of venous thromboembolism. Although raloxifene does not increase, nor decrease, the risk of coronary or stroke events overall, in the raloxifene trial of PMW at increased risk of coronary events, the incidence of fatal stroke was higher in women assigned raloxifene versus placebo., Conclusions: Based on its approved indications, it is appropriate to prescribe raloxifene to prevent or treat osteoporosis, as well as to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in PMW with osteoporosis or at high risk of breast cancer. Women at increased risk of both fracture and invasive breast cancer are those most likely to receive a dual benefit with raloxifene. Decision making must involve the incorporation of the woman's personal feelings about the risks and benefits of raloxifene therapy, balanced with her interest in reducing risk of fractures and breast cancer through pharmacological intervention.

Objective: To provide clinically relevant information on tadalafil 2.5 or 5 mg once daily for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), by reviewing safety and efficacy study findings. Findings from an integrated analysis of trials of tadalafil 10 and 20 mg as needed are presented to provide context for the daily dosing regime., Research Design and Methods: Of the three studies that included approved once-daily doses, two were conducted in the general ED population and one in a diabetic ED population. An integrated analysis was performed using 12-week efficacy and safety data from the studies conducted in the general ED population., Results: In the general ED population, the 12-week mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) erectile function (EF) domain scores increased by 6.2 to an endpoint score of 19.2 and by 8.6 to 21.9 for 2.5 and 5 mg doses, respectively, versus an increase of 1.3 to 14.9 for placebo (p < 0.01). Mean successful intercourse attempts (SEP3) were 50% and 62% for tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg once daily, respectively, versus 33% for placebo (p < 0.01). These findings were consistent with those for tadalafil as needed. In 1- and 2-year open label extensions of tadalafil 5 mg once daily, efficacy was maintained. In the diabetic ED population, 12-week mean IIEF EF scores increased by 4.8 to 18.3 and 4.5 to 17.2 with tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg, respectively, versus an increase of 1.3 to 14.7 for placebo (p < 0.01). Mean successful intercourse attempts were more than 40% for each tadalafil dose, versus 28% for placebo (p < 0.01). The profile of treatment-emergent adverse events with tadalafil once daily was similar to that previously reported with as-needed treatment; the most common adverse events with tadalafil (dyspepsia, nasopharyngitis, headaches) were reported in

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between bone mass and risk of breast cancer and to determine the effect of raloxifene therapy on breast cancer incidence in women categorized by bone mass into low bone mass and osteoporosis subgroups., Design: In this post hoc analysis, data were analyzed from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial, enrolling postmenopausal women with low bone mass (N = 7705), and the Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial, a follow-up to MORE enrolling 4011 MORE participants. Total follow-up was for up to 8 years. Women with a total hip bone mineral density (BMD) T-score < -1 to > -2.5 or T-score < or = -2.5 (referent, NHANES III database) were classified as having low bone mass or osteoporosis, respectively. Women with a pre-existing vertebral fracture were considered as having osteoporosis irrespective of BMD T-score. Analyses were performed for invasive breast cancers and invasive estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancers., Results: Women with low bone mass (N = 3829) had a twofold higher incidence of invasive ER-positive breast cancer than those with osteoporosis (N = 3836) (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.12-4.03). The incidence of all invasive breast cancers did not differ significantly between the bone mass groups. The incidences of invasive and invasive ER-positive breast cancers were 65-78% lower in women assigned raloxifene versus placebo in both the low bone mass and osteoporosis groups (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of postmenopausal women participating in MORE and CORE, bone mass was a predictor of invasive ER-positive breast cancer. Raloxifene treatment reduced the risk of invasive and invasive ER-positive breast cancers in women with low bone mass and those with osteoporosis. Since participants were older postmenopausal women with low bone mass, whether these findings can be generalized to other postmenopausal women is unclear.

Background: Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), decreases total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in postmenopausal women and inhibits increases in intima-media thickness (IMT) in animal models. We tested whether up to 8 years exposure to raloxifene had an effect on subclinical atherosclerosis in the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial and the follow-up study, the 4-year Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial., Methods: A subsample of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, who had completed the MORE and CORE trials and were on average 68 years of age and 19 years postmenopausal at randomization into MORE, participated in this substudy. Within 6 months of cessation of study drug in CORE, right common carotid artery IMT (CIMT) and carotid artery stiffness and arterial compliance were measured at one of two sites (San Diego and San Francisco) using high-resolution B-mode ultrasound. CIMT and arterial stiffness measures were compared between women who had received raloxifene vs. placebo; the primary analysis included only women who were >or=80% drug compliant and had used

Aim: To determine the contribution of bone mineral density (BMD) to breast cancer risk relative to other established breast cancer risk factors in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis., Methods: Data for this analysis comprised those collected from women randomized to placebo in the MORE and CORE trials (N = 2,576). Risk factors measured at baseline included age, family history of breast cancer, estradiol level, body mass index, prior hormone therapy, BMD and vertebral fracture status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Over a total of 13,698 woman-years of follow-up, 65 incident breast cancers occurred. In univariate analyses, older age and family history of breast cancer were the strongest predictors of breast cancer risk, associated with a 2.4- and 2.6-fold increase in breast cancer incidence. A higher estradiol level was associated with a 1.9-fold increase in breast cancer incidence. The association between femoral neck BMD and breast cancer incidence was only significant after adjustment for age (P = 0.03). The final multivariable model included age, family history, estradiol, BMD, and the BMD-estradiol interaction since the effect of BMD on breast cancer varied by estradiol level (interaction P-value, 0.04); in those with a lower estradiol level, a higher BMD was associated with a 2.6-fold increased in breast cancer., Conclusion: Overall, BMD is a relatively weak predictor of breast cancer risk in these postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, after taking into consideration age, family history and endogenous estradiol level.

Purpose: To assess the effect of raloxifene, indicated for osteoporosis treatment and prevention, on invasive breast cancer in subgroups of postmenopausal women defined by risk factors for breast cancer., Experimental Design: Data from the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial (N=7,705) and a follow-up study, the 4-year Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial (N=4,011), were analyzed. Prespecified subgroups were defined by age (>or=65 versus<65 years), age at menopause (>or=49 versus<49 years), body mass index (>or=25 versus<25 kg/m2), family history of breast cancer (yes/no), serum estradiol level (5-10 versus<5, >10 versus<5 pmol/L), prior estrogen therapy (yes/no), and bone mass at MORE baseline, and 5-year predicted risk, assessed using the modified Gail model (>or=1.67 versus<1.67%), at CORE baseline. Time-to-first invasive breast cancer was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: In the placebo group, older age, higher estradiol level, and a family history of breast cancer were associated with an increased breast cancer risk (P<0.05). Raloxifene therapy was associated with a reduced breast cancer risk in both women at lower and those at higher breast cancer risk. Hazard ratio point estimates were 0.11 to 0.67, corresponding to a 33% to 89% reduction in breast cancer risk with raloxifene versus placebo. The therapy by family history interaction was significant (P=0.04)., Conclusions: Raloxifene therapy was associated with a reduced risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women irrespective of the presence/absence of risk factors; its effect was greater in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Background: Multiple factors that influence the precision of periodontal probing measurements have been identified. These factors can be categorized as being dependent upon host-related, probe-related, or examiner-related variables. However, the potential influence of examiner handedness (right or left) on the measurement of periodontal probing depths (PDs) has not been addressed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the measurements of PDs in the right and left quadrants are influenced by the handedness of the examiner., Methods: Eight systemically healthy adult subjects with varying degrees of attachment loss and a minimum of 20 teeth were examined by five right-handed and five left-handed clinicians. The 10 clinicians were trained and calibrated for reproducible probe placement and angulation. PDs were measured using a conventional periodontal probe at six sites per tooth. Mean PD measurements were compared between right- and left-handed examiners using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a random patient effect to correlate participant data and a random effect for the examiner., Results: There was no statistical difference in the measurement of PDs between right- and left-handed examiners at various locations in the mouth (P>0.17 in all cases). Only three individual sites showed a statistically significantly different mean PD between right- and left-handed examiners (unadjusted P<0.05; differences at or near 0.5 mm). Overall, right-handed examiners tended to record slightly higher PD measurements than left-handed examiners, but this difference did not reach statistical significance., Conclusions: The handedness of the periodontal examiner does not appear to influence the recorded measurement of probing depths. This finding is relevant to those conducting clinical research involving assessment of periodontal status.

The impact of selective estrogen receptor modulators on cardiovascular disease outcomes in postmenopausal women remains unclear. This analysis assessed the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events in postmenopausal women followed for < or =8 years as participants in a 4-year osteoporosis treatment trial and a subsequent 4-year follow-up trial. The Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial, designed to determine the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of invasive breast cancer, was a 4-year follow-up study to the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) osteoporosis treatment trial. Of the 7,705 participants originally enrolled in MORE, 4,011 were enrolled in CORE and thus participated in both trials (MORE-CORE participants). The incidence of serious cardiovascular (i.e., coronary and cerebrovascular) adverse events during 8 years, confirmed by external adjudication in the 2 trials, was compared between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazards models. The 8-year incidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events did not differ significantly between the raloxifene (5.5%) and placebo (4.7%) groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.56). Similar results were obtained when coronary (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.83) or cerebrovascular (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84) events were analyzed separately, and when cardiovascular events were analyzed in the 459 MORE-CORE participants who were at increased risk of cardiovascular events by previously established criteria (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.82). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a beneficial or harmful effect of raloxifene on the incidence of cardiovascular events overall, or coronary or cerebrovascular events, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at relatively low risk of cardiovascular events.

Objective: The HumaPen Memoir (HPM) is a new reusable insulin injection pen. It possesses an electronic component so that 16 insulin doses are stored in the memory. This study's aim was to evaluate the functionality of the device (i.e., ability to deliver a set dose of insulin), its impact on patient safety, and patient/healthcare professional (HCP) acceptance., Research Design and Methods: In this 6-10-week (3 visit) multinational, multi-centre, open-label, single-arm outpatient study, participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were assigned to inject either their prandial or basal insulin dose using the HPM and instructed to record all complaints with the study pen or user manual. Investigators submitted a complaint form to the sponsor for each participant complaint, and for adverse events (AEs) potentially related to the study pen. Where a complaint was possibly related to a pen malfunction, the pen was returned to the sponsor for assessment. Participant/HCP acceptance of the HPM was evaluated using questionnaires., Results: Of the 300 participants (mean age 52 [SD 15] years), 58% were male and 62% had type 2 diabetes. The mean duration of pre-study pen use was 7 years. The average exposure to the HPM was 8.2 (SD 1.6) weeks. Overall, 314 study pens were used (14 were replacements). Functional complaints were reported for 24 devices (7.6%), of which 8 (2.5%) were permanent electronic failures, and 15 (4.8%) were user-related (1 pen not returned for assessment). None of these functional issues resulted in a serious AE. Non-functional complaints were reported for 33 devices (10.5%). There were no pen-related hypoglycemic episodes and 2 pen-related hyperglycemic episodes were reported. The majority of participants (81.4%) preferred the HPM over their pre-study pen. The new insulin pen was generally rated higher than the pre-study pen for pen features and tasks associated with everyday pen use., Conclusions: No major functional issue of the HPM resulting in a serious AE was reported in this study. Based on the study results this new insulin pen demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile.

Objective: Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder that warrants long-term therapy. If benefits are to outweigh risks, the long-term safety profiles of these therapies must be favorable. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of raloxifene over 8 years in 4011 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in a clinical trial setting through adverse event reporting., Methods: Data analyzed comprised all reported adverse events collected at each visit of both the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial, and the subsequent Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial. MORE was an international, 4-year double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, designed to assess the effect of raloxifene on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture incidence in 7705 (placebo, 2576; raloxifene, 5129) postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Breast cancer was a secondary endpoint. Based on the breast cancer findings of MORE, the CORE trial, a 4-year double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a subset of MORE participants, was subsequently conducted. CORE enrolled 4011 (placebo, 1286; raloxifene, 2725) participants and was designed to examine raloxifene's effect on breast cancer incidence. Safety analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle, and comparison between therapies was analyzed using a two-sided Fisher's exact test., Results: Over the 8 years of follow-up of 4011 women, there was no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization incidence between raloxifene and placebo groups (p > 0.1). Excluding breast cancer and non-melanoma skin cancer, cancer incidence was 4.6% and 6.3% in the raloxifene and placebo group, respectively (p = 0.027). Raloxifene was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in venous thromboembolism incidence (95% confidence interval 0.93-3.14), with an absolute risk difference of 0.9 per 1000 woman-years. There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, uterine cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, ovarian cancer or postmenopausal bleeding between the raloxifene and placebo treatment groups (p > 0.5). Uterine polyps, hot flushes and muscle cramps were more common in those receiving raloxifene versus placebo (p = 0.028, p < 0.001, and p = 0.008, respectively)., Conclusion: These 8-year data support the known clinical safety profile of raloxifene, established in the MORE trial.