Search

Objective: This study aimed to validate the newly developed composite acceptability endpoint to investigate acceptability of oral pediatric drug formulations that integrates swallowability and palatability assessments. Methods: In this open-label study acceptability of oral formulations was tested in three age groups (1-<6 months, 6-<12 years, and 12-<18 years) with a 2-way cross-over design in children aged 1-<6 months (syrup and mini-tablets), and with an incomplete block design of four sequences with three out of four formulations (syrup, mini-tablets, oblong tablet, and round tablet) each in children aged 6-<18 years. The primary endpoint was acceptability derived from the composite acceptability endpoint. Secondary endpoints were palatability and acceptability derived from swallowability. Results: A total of 320 children were stratified into three age groups (80 children aged 1-<6 months, 120 children aged 6-<12 years, and 120 children aged 12-<18 years). All participants completed the study. Age-specific differences were observed in acceptability derived from the composite acceptability endpoint. Mini-tablets had the highest acceptability in participants aged 1-<6 months and 6-<12 years while the oblong tablet was leading in adolescent participants (12-<18 years). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the composite acceptability endpoint method integrating both swallowability and palatability assessments is a sensitive method to assess acceptability of drug formulations in children of different age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the acceptability of a medicine can significantly impact therapeutic outcomes, this study aimed to determine and compare the preferences of children, parents, and healthcare professionals for the most commonly used pediatric oral medicine formulations (syrup, mini-tablets, oblong tablets, round tablets) addressing all pediatric age groups, 0–<18 years (y). This survey study employed sex-, age-, and participant group-adapted questionnaires for eight cohorts of participants, i.e., children 6–<12 y, adolescents 12–<18 y, parents of children in four age groups (0–<2 y, 2–<6 y, 6–<12 y, and 12–<18 y), nurses, and pediatricians. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. In the age groups 0–<2 y and 2–<6 y, mini-tablets were preferred over syrup by all participants. In the age group 6–12 y, solid dosage forms were also preferred over syrup by all participants. In the age group 12–<18 y, healthcare professionals preferred solid dosage forms over syrup. Parents preferred higher amounts of mini-tablets and syrup compared to round and oblong tablets, while adolescents' preferences did not differentiate between these formulations. Based on the study results and in contrast to current practice, it is suggested to consider solid dosage forms for future age-appropriate medicinal products already for younger age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are progesterone vaginal pessaries 400 mg twice a day (bid) non-inferior to progesterone vaginal gel (90 mg) once a day (od) in the primary endpoint of clinical pregnancy rate after 38 days of luteal phase support in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)?Summary Answer: Non-inferiority of progesterone vaginal pessaries 400 mg bid to progesterone 8% vaginal gel (90 mg od) was shown for clinical pregnancy rate after 38 days of luteal phase support.What Is Known Already: To maximise successful embryo transfer after IVF, additionally administered progesterone is used for proper endometrium transformation in the luteal phase. Vaginally administered progesterone results in adequate secretory transformation of the endometrium.Study Design, Size, Duration: This multicentre, multinational, open, randomised, two-parallel group, non-inferiority Phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at 17 study sites in five European countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Serbia) between October 2013 and August 2014. An interactive web response system (IWRS) was implemented for treatment allocation at the sites. Power analysis, based on the assumptions of a non-inferiority margin of -9%, a significance level of α 2.5% (one-sided), power 90%, at a reference pregnancy rate for the progesterone vaginal gel group of 30%, as well as applying a dropout rate of 10%, yielded a total number of 766 patients to be randomised.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women aged between 18 and 40 years with a clinical indication for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo transfer were eligible to participate. The clinical pregnancy rate was assessed by fetal heart movement measured by transvaginal ultrasound at day 38 (D38) (primary endpoint) and D70. Also assessed were biochemical pregnancy rate (assessed by serum β-hCG ≥25 IU/L), clinical implantation rates at D38, patient evaluation of vaginal bleeding and discharge (assessed by diary) and adverse event (AE) incidence, severity and relationship to study medication.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: A total of 769 female patients were randomised to progesterone 400 mg vaginal pessaries bid (n = 385, 50.1%) or progesterone 90 mg vaginal gel od (n = 384, 49.9%). Patients receiving progesterone vaginal pessaries and progesterone vaginal gel were comparable in demographics, baseline characteristics and number of retrieved oocytes. In the full analysis set (FAS; n = 369 progesterone vaginal pessaries and n = 368 progesterone vaginal gel), clinical pregnancy rates on D38 were 38.3% for progesterone vaginal pessaries and 39.9% for progesterone vaginal gel. In the per protocol analysis set (PP; n = 357 progesterone vaginal pessaries and n = 356 progesterone vaginal gel), clinical pregnancy rates on D38 were 38.1% for progesterone vaginal pessaries and 40.4% for progesterone vaginal gel. For the differences in pregnancy rates between the progesterone vaginal pessaries group and the progesterone vaginal gel, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI was -8.6 and -9.5% for the FAS and PP datasets, respectively. The original prespecified non-inferiority margin of -9% was thus met in the FAS dataset but was marginally below this in the PP dataset. However, the pregnancy rate of the comparator was higher than the anticipated rate of 30%, and a predetermined logistic regression model including treatment group, country and age group effects without interaction terms showed non-inferiority of progesterone vaginal pessaries to progesterone vaginal gel for both the FAS and PP populations, in that the lower limits of the 95% CIs were above 0.7 for both analyses. As a result of this, the relevant authorities accepted to widen the acceptable non-inferiority margin to -10%, and as such both the FAS and PP populations succeeded in showing non-inferiority. Biochemical pregnancy and clinical implantation rates were comparable for both treatments. Both treatment groups showed similar high compliance throughout the study, and the safety profiles were also comparable between the groups. Drug-related AEs occurred with frequencies of 15.1% with progesterone vaginal pessaries and 14.4% with progesterone vaginal gel.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Clinical pregnancy rate is a surrogate for the outcome of live birth rate.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Progesterone 400 mg pessaries bid for luteal phase support is an effective, safe and tolerable treatment option for women undergoing IVF during ART.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was funded by Actavis Group PTC ehf., Iceland, part of Teva Pharmaceuticals, and by L.D. Collins & Co. Ltd. Gedeon Richter plc has recently entered into a license and distribution agreement to commercialise the vaginal pessaries in the European Union (except Ireland/UK). The progesterone vaginal pessaries studied are now marketed as Cyclogest®, Amelgen®, Cyclovita®, Luteum and Cygest® throughout the EU, Asia and Middle East & North Africa. The competing interests are as follows. H.S.: employee of Gedeon Richter plc/PregLem S.A. C.K.: consultant to L.D. Collins & Co. Ltd and received consulting fees for work performed. T.D.H.: at the initiation and completion of this study, full professor at KU Leuven and Head of Leuven University Fertility Center at the University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. In October 2015, T.D.H. became vice president of Global Medical Affairs Fertility at the pharmaceutical company Merck-marketing authorisation holder of the Progesterone vaginal gel (Crinone®)-and has remained a part-time professor at KU Leuven (Belgium) and adjunct professor at Yale University (New Haven, CT, USA). T.B.M.: at the initiation and completion of this study, employee of Actavis Group PTC ehf. I.K.: consultant to Actavis, later TEVA and received consulting fees for work performed. S.H.: at the initiation and completion of this study, employee of Actavis Group PTC ehf.Trial Registration Number: EudraCT number 2013-001105-81.Trial Registration Date: 2 July 2013.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 9 October 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril is commonly used to treat chronic heart failure in children. Because some children are unable to swallow capsules or tablets, a new, age‐appropriate, orodispersible minitablet (ODMT) containing 1 mg of enalapril was developed within the EU‐funded LENA (Labeling of Enalapril from Neonates up to Adolescents) consortium. In order to support the clinical evaluation of this new formulation in children, a relative bioavailability study was performed in healthy adults, comparing the bioavailability of enalapril in the ODMT with that of a reference product (RP) Renitec, a registered standard enalapril tablet formulation. In this open‐label, randomized 3‐way crossover study, 24 healthy subjects received a 10‐mg enalapril dose administered as (1) 2 × 5‐mg tablets of the RP swallowed with water, (2) 10 × 1‐mg ODMT swallowed with water, and (3) 10 × 1 mg ODMT dispersed on the tongue. When the relative bioavailability of the ODMT formulation swallowed with water was compared with that of the RP, the estimated 90%CIs for the ratio of area under the concentration‐time curve (AUC0‐∞) and or peak concentration (Cmax) of enalapril were 92.34% to 106.49% and 91.28% to 115.72%, respectively, which are within the accepted bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125%. Following dispersion of the ODMT in the mouth, a slightly higher Cmax for enalapril was observed as compared with the RP with an upper 90%CI of 127.57%, slightly exceeding the bioequivalence limit. Taken together, it was demonstrated that the method of administration of the ODMT, swallowed or dispersed, did not significantly affect the bioavailability of enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]